Policy Programmes Team
Survey of noise attitudes 2014: Aircraft
CAP 1506
CAP 1506
Published by the Civil Aviation Authority, 2017
Civil Aviation Authority,
Aviation House,
Gatwick Airport South,
West Sussex,
RH6 0YR.
You can copy and use this text but please ensure you always use the most up to date version and use it in context so as not to
be misleading, and credit the CAA.
First published 2017
The work reported herein was carried out under a Letter of Agreement placed on 27 April 2016 by the Department for
Transport. Any views expressed are not necessarily those of the Secretary of State for Transport.
Enquiries regarding the content of this publication should be addressed to: [email protected]
Environmental Research and Consultancy Department, Policy Programmes Team, CAA House, 45-59 Kingsway, London,
WC2B 6TE
The latest version of this document is available in electronic format at www.caa.co.uk, where you may also register for e-mail
notification of amendments.
February 2017
CAP 1506
Contents
Contents
Contents ............................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................. 7
Background........................................................................................................................... 7
Noise indices ................................................................................................................. 7
UK Aircraft Noise Index .......................................................................................... 8
ANASE .................................................................................................................. 9
Noise indices in scope ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................... 11
Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 11
NNAS and SoNA ......................................................................................................... 11
SoNA 2014 .................................................................................................................. 12
Questionnaire design ........................................................................................... 13
Survey design ...................................................................................................... 14
Noise modelling ................................................................................................... 16
Effect of runway direction ..................................................................................... 18
Chapter 4 ........................................................................................................................... 20
Social survey results ........................................................................................................... 20
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 20
Survey design, responses and weighting..................................................................... 20
SoNA 2014 in the context of SoNA 2013 ..................................................................... 21
Demographic, household and dwelling Information for the SoNA 2014 sample .... 21
Noise sensitivity ................................................................................................... 26
Attitudes to key environmental problems .............................................................. 27
Chapter 5 ........................................................................................................................... 29
Noise exposure and annoyance .......................................................................................... 29
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 29
Number of respondents by noise exposure .......................................................... 29
Noise annoyance ......................................................................................................... 32
Sampling rationale ............................................................................................... 32
Survey questions on annoyance .......................................................................... 33
February 2017
Page 1
CAP 1506
Contents
Annoyance scores ............................................................................................... 35
Relationship between different noise indicators and mean annoyance score ....... 40
Effect of runway direction ............................................................................................ 41
Airport developments, consultations and trials during 2014 ......................................... 44
Percentage highly annoyed ......................................................................................... 44
Comparison with ANASE and ANIS............................................................................. 47
Chapter 6 ........................................................................................................................... 51
Health and wellbeing ........................................................................................................... 51
Chapter 7 ........................................................................................................................... 55
Non-acoustic factors ........................................................................................................... 55
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 55
Multivariate analysis .................................................................................................... 56
Confounding factors .................................................................................................... 60
Dose response relationship .................................................................................. 61
Chapter 8 ........................................................................................................................... 62
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 62
Survey and analysis methodology ............................................................................... 62
Study aims .................................................................................................................. 62
Is LAeq,16h still the most appropriate indicator to use to estimate the annoyance
arising from aircraft noise? ................................................................................... 63
Is summer day, average mode, still the best time period to use as opposed to
single-mode? ....................................................................................................... 64
How does annoyance relate to exposure? ........................................................... 64
How do the results compare with ANIS, ANASE & Miedema? ............................. 64
How do measures of health and well-being relate to exposure?........................... 65
What non-acoustical factors seem to influence annoyance? ................................ 65
Recommendations for future surveys ................................................................... 66
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................ 67
Glossary of terms ................................................................................................................ 67
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................ 68
Noise indices ...................................................................................................................... 68
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 68
Single event LAmax ........................................................................................................ 68
Equivalent Continuous Sound Level, LAeq .................................................................... 69
Lden and the EU Environmental Noise Directive ........................................................... 70
N70 and N65 ............................................................................................................... 70
February 2017
Page 2
CAP 1506
Contents
Appendix C ........................................................................................................................ 74
SoNA 2014 questionnaire ................................................................................................... 74
Appendix D ...................................................................................................................... 103
2014 noise exposure contours for study airports ............................................................... 103
Appendix E ...................................................................................................................... 113
Airport developments, consultations and trials during 2014 ............................................... 113
February 2017
Page 3
CAP 1506
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1
Airports aim to satisfy the demands of travellers and provide jobs: but they
can cause adverse effects on the environment and people living nearby. A
major form of adverse effect is that from aircraft noise. Airport planning
and development planning must take account of the aircraft noise
exposure to residents; airport operators and interested government
departments have to view aircraft operations in the context of the related
airport noise. These assessments are usually carried out in the UK, and in
most countries of the world, by using noise exposure indices.
1.2
This report describes a research study to obtain new and updated
evidence on attitudes to aviation noise around airports in England, and
how they relate to the UK aircraft noise exposure indices. The study was
commissioned by the Department for Transport, and builds on earlier
noise attitude surveys commissioned by Defra.
1.3
The current UK civil aircraft noise exposure index, LAeq,16h was adopted in
1990, based on an aircraft noise attitude survey undertaken in 1982 and
reported as the UK Aircraft Noise Index Study (ANIS) in 19851. Contours
of equal noise exposure, rather like geographical height contours, are
plotted around an airport, along with estimates of the area and population
contained within the contours. The 57dB LAeq,16h contour was chosen as
the threshold of community annoyance because it ‘indicated a marked
increase in some reported measures of disturbance’2, with 63 and 69dB
LAeq,16h representing medium and high annoyance and subsequently
incorporated into planning policy guidance.
1
2
Brooker et al 1985. Brooker P, Critchley J B, Monkman D J & Richmond C. DR Report 8402:
United Kingdom Aircraft Noise Study: Main Report, January 1985.
Critchley et al 1990. Critchley J B & Ollerhead J B. DORA Report 9023: The use of Leq as an
Aircraft Noise Index, Civil Aviation Authority, September 1990.
February 2017
Page 4
CAP 1506
1.4
Chapter 1: Introduction
LAeq,16h was established as the relevant indicator by means of social
surveys and noise measurements. The ANIS social survey measured
annoyance from aircraft noise expressed by a sample of people living at
different places around five English and one Scottish airport. Noise data
were then matched to reported attitudes so that physical noise variables
could be used to estimate annoyance.
1.5
Critics of LAeq,16h argue that:

it is difficult to comprehend, being on a logarithmic scale,

an equivalent continuous level is not consistent with people’s
perception of aircraft noise as a number of discrete, noticeable
events, and

it is out of date, 57 dB LAeq,16h no longer represents the approximate
onset of significant community annoyance.
1.6
The overall aims of the Survey of Noise Attitudes (SoNA) 2014 were to:

Obtain new and updated evidence on attitudes to aviation noise
around airports in England, including the effects of aviation noise on
annoyance (Chapter 5), wellbeing and health (Chapter 6).

Obtain new and updated evidence on what influences attitudes to
aviation noise (Chapter 5 & 7), and how attitudes vary, particularly
how attitudes vary with LAeq, but also other non-acoustic factors that
may influence attitudes, such as location and time of day, and socio
economic group of respondents.

Examine whether the currently used measure of annoyance, LAeq, is
the appropriate measure of annoyance for measuring the impact on
people living around major airports.

Consider the appropriateness of the policy threshold for significant
community annoyance from aviation noise.

Provide baseline results that can be used for a programme of regular
surveys of attitudes to aviation noise.
February 2017
Page 5
CAP 1506
1.7
1.8
Chapter 1: Introduction
The report is structured as follows:

Background

Methodology

Social Survey Results SoNA 2014 in the context of SoNA 2013

Noise exposure and annoyance

Health

Non-acoustic factors

Conclusions
The glossary to the report gives definitions of the more commonly used
technical terms concerning aircraft and airport operations used here.
February 2017
Page 6
CAP 1506
Chapter 2: Background
Chapter 2
Background
Noise indices
2.1
Noise indices must be reliable; thus they must not only correlate
adequately with impact, but also be relatively simple to understand,
readily definable by measurement or prediction, robust (which means that
they are insensitive to unavoidable or unpredictable uncertainties), and
realistic by accounting for factors that common sense tells people are
important. As a rule, the major impact around airports is from air noise3
which, for the most part, is a clearly identifiable part of the total noise
climate. Thus aircraft noise indices are expected to be sensitive to factors
such as the numbers of aircraft heard and their noise levels and
differences between day and night activity.
2.2
A large number of noise indices has been proposed to describe aircraft
noise, developed, tested and implemented in different countries over the
last half-century or so. The existence of different approaches is not
surprising, given the complexity of how aircraft noise varies. The situation
has now changed. Thanks to progress in the field of research, and with
better communications and international collaboration between
researchers, as well as continuing efforts by the standardisation bodies,
there is a reasonable level of agreement on many of the fundamental
aspects of the approach to the situation, especially regarding the definition
of noise exposures. Appendix B provides an overview of the various noise
indicators that are in common use.
2.3
Despite this progress, aircraft noise assessments remain complicated and
there will always be demands for more and better information about the
impacts of noise as well as identifying the means for mitigating them.
3
By convention, the noise generated by aircraft during landing and take-off, including the noise
generated whilst accelerating to take off and decelerating after landing. Noise generated during
taxi from and to the runway and whilst parked is considered ground noise.
February 2017
Page 7
CAP 1506
Chapter 2: Background
There is also a natural caution towards changing noise indices upon
which past policies and plans have been based.
UK Aircraft Noise Index
2.4
This section summarises the history of the LAeq,16h noise index and the
need for review.
2.5
LAeq,16h was adopted in 1990 on the basis of the 1982 Aircraft Noise Index
Study, ANIS1. The reference time period is an average summer day, from
June 16th to September 15th inclusive and from 7am to 11pm. The
summer day period dates back to the recommendations in the 1963
Wilson Committee report on aircraft noise, which recommended
measuring noise exposure during the summer months because people
were more likely to have windows open, be outdoors, and aviation activity
is at its most intense. In addition to these reasons, warmer summer
temperatures adversely affect aircraft performance and lead to increased
noise exposure compared to other times of the year. The time period of
7am to 11pm, recognises that daytime and night-time noise exposure can
lead to quite different reactions in people (principally daytime annoyance
and night-time sleep disturbance) and thus it is better to define day and
night noise exposure separately.
2.6
At the time LAeq,16h was adopted in 1990, the UK government defined
three threshold levels for policy consideration: 57, 63 and 69dB LAeq,16h
representing, low, moderate and high annoyance. In the 2003 Air
Transport White Paper, 57dB LAeq,16h was defined as marking the
approximate onset of significant community annoyance, and this was reaffirmed in the Government’s 2013 Aviation Policy Framework4.
2.7
Critics argue that attitudes have changed since the 1982 survey. This
could be because of general shifts in attitudes to annoyance, changes in
4
2013 Aviation Policy Framework, Cm 8584, ISBN 9780101858427, Department for Transport,
March 2013.
February 2017
Page 8
CAP 1506
Chapter 2: Background
the pattern of aircraft noise experienced, and/or because of changes to
lifestyle that are affected by aircraft noise.
2.8
Secondly, a number of alternative noise indices have been developed and
come into use since LAeq,16h was adopted. These include the EU
Environmental Noise Directive’s 24hr weighted noise index (Lden see
Appendix B for more details). In Australia, although the noise index for
planning continues to be the ANEF5, N70 has come to prominence as a
supplementary indicator (see Appendix B for more details). N70 is often
considered to be easier to understand as it is a linear index.
ANASE
2.9
The Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England (ANASE) study
was commissioned by the DfT in 2001 and was published in 20076. The
aims of the study were to re-assess attitudes to aircraft noise in England,
re-assess their correlation with the LAeq,16h noise index and examine
willingness to pay in respect of annoyance from such noise, in relation to
other elements, on the basis of stated preference survey evidence.
2.10
In addition to interview questions, respondents at some of the study sites
were played audio recordings of aircraft noise and were also asked to rate
their “willingness to pay” to avoid aircraft noise. The study concluded that
“levels of annoyance were higher than expected from previous surveys
and that the relationship between LAeq and annoyance was not stable over
time:

the proportion of respondents who are at least very annoyed is less
than 10% for areas with LAeq less than 43dB;

the proportion of respondents at least very annoyed generally
increases with LAeq for values of LAeq over 43dB, although there is a
relatively large spread in percentages for most LAeq values; and
5
6
Australian Noise Exposure Forecast.
Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England, November 2007.
February 2017
Page 9
CAP 1506
Chapter 2: Background

at least 40% of respondents were at least very annoyed for all
except one of the areas with LAeq greater than 57dB.”
2.11
Although the researchers concluded there was no clear threshold
between 43 and 57dB LAeq,16h, the study suggested that for the same
proportion of highly annoyed people as found in ANIS at 57dB LAeq,16hr
(10%), the corresponding LAeq,16h level would be approximately 10-13 dB
lower.
2.12
The independent peer review by Havelock (CAA) and Turner (Bureau
Veritas)7 raised concerns over the use of and calibration of noise playback
equipment prior to the social survey being undertaken. Restricted sites,
where no noise playback equipment was used appeared to show
differences in attitudes to those from the main study, where noise
playback equipment was used. There were also concerns over the
estimation of aircraft noise at survey sites. Consequently the peer review
concluded that “there were sufficient technical and methodological
uncertainties still remaining with the study… [that] the reviewers would
counsel against using the results and conclusions in the development of
government policy”.
Noise indices in scope
2.13
The high level of aims of SoNA 2014, set out in Chapter 1, make it clear
that one of the aims of the study was to check whether LAeq, is the
appropriate measure of annoyance for measuring the impact of aircraft
noise on people living around major airports. The aim, however, was not
to create new noise indices. Thus, with reference to Appendix B, the noise
indices in scope were:




7
average summer day LAeq,16h
average annual Lden (24 hour)
average summer day N70 (16 hour)
average summer day N65 (16 hour)
ANASE Non-SP Peer Review, November 2007.
February 2017
Page 10
CAP 1506
Chapter 3: Methodology
Chapter 3
Methodology
NNAS and SoNA
3.1
In 2012 Defra conducted the National Noise Attitudes Survey (NNAS
2012)8, which provided the Government with a good estimate of current
attitudes to various aspects of ‘environmental, neighbour and
neighbourhood noise’ from face-to-face interviews (including the
percentage of the population affected). In addition, it was intended that
this information would allow the Government to detect any substantive
changes in attitudes to noise in the UK since the 2000 survey. The sample
size of NNAS 2012 was over 2,700 respondents.
3.2
The NNAS 2012 found that 72% of respondents reported general
satisfaction with their noise environment, however, 48% felt their home life
was spoilt to some extent by noise. Between 2000 and 2012 there was an
increase of between 11% and 17% (depending on the noise source) in the
proportion of people surveyed who felt that they were to some extent
bothered, annoyed or disturbed by the four of the most commonly heard
sources of noise (‘road traffic’, ‘neighbours and/or other people nearby’,
‘aircraft, airports and airfields’ and ‘building, construction, demolition,
renovation and road works’). The only statistically significant increase in
the proportion of people that considered themselves very or extremely
bothered, annoyed or disturbed between 2000 and 2012 was for aircraft
noise (from 2% to 4%).
3.3
In 2013 Defra ran the first Survey of Noise Attitudes (SoNA 2013)9, a
face-to-face survey within England to establish current attitudes to noise,
in particular attitudes from road traffic and neighbour noise sources and a
8
9
National Noise Attitude Survey (2012) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra).
Survey of Noise Attitudes (2013) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
February 2017
Page 11
CAP 1506
Chapter 3: Methodology
section that could focus on different areas of interest without impacting on
the backwards compatibility of the rest of the questionnaire. In 2013, that
section concentrated on entertainment noise. SoNA 2013 found that just
over two-thirds of respondents reported hearing aircraft, airport or airfield
noise, with 3% giving very or extreme ratings for being bothered, annoyed
or disturbed.
3.4
SoNA 2014 is a continuation of SoNA 2013. In this instance, it was
decided that the variable section in the 2014 survey should consider civil
aircraft noise in order to obtain up-to-date and detailed information
regarding attitudes to aircraft noise. The Civil Aircraft Noise (CAN) section
was introduced in 2014 alongside the other sections on road and
neighbourhood noise and replaced the previous entertainment noise
section. It was not made explicit to respondents at the start of the survey
that the focus of the study was aircraft noise in order to minimise potential
bias.
SoNA 2014
3.5
Unlike NNAS 2012 and SoNA 2013, the SoNA 2014 responses needed
relating to noise exposure. To do so, however, meant that the sample for
SoNA 2014 could not be nationally representative as sampled residents
had to live within different noise contour bands near airports.
3.6
Face-to-face interviews from a representative sample of approximately
2,000 adults aged 18 and over were collected from those living in
residential dwellings in proximity to nine of the largest airports in England
(as defined by aircraft movements), and where noise from aircraft is
estimated to be more than 51 dB LAeq,16h during an average summer day.
3.7
The sampling was designed such that one-third of the interviews were
carried out in the 51 54 dB LAeq,16h band, and two-thirds for noise
exposure in the >54dB LAeq, 16h band (stratification based on estimated
population numbers falling within these bands). This was done to increase
February 2017
Page 12
CAP 1506
Chapter 3: Methodology
statistical power at higher noise exposure levels, where populations
decrease as noise exposure levels increase.
3.8
This chapter briefly summarises the questionnaire design process, the
survey design, the sample selection and the noise indicators considered.
Questionnaire design
3.9
The survey questionnaire built on that developed by Defra for its 2013
Survey of Noise Attitudes (SoNA 2013), which itself was developed from
the 2012 National Noise Attitude Survey (NNAS 2012).
3.10
The survey questionnaire, as provided in Appendix C, comprised of five
sections:
3.11
1)
A general section
2)
An optional Road Traffic Noise section10
3)
An optional Neighbourhood Noise section10
4)
A Civil Aircraft Noise section
5)
A health section
The civil aircraft noise section included two questions on noise annoyance
that sought responses on a 5-point scale and an 11-point scale,
recommended by ICBEN11 and ISO12 respectively, which allow direct
comparison with the 2007 ANASE study6. Such questions explicitly sought
views on annoyance due to aircraft noise. The survey also asked
residents early in the interview ‘Is there anything you particularly dislike
about this neighbourhood?’ and specifically looked (without prompting) for
responses mentioning aircraft or aircraft noise.
10
11
12
The road traffic and neighbourhood noise sections were only asked if the respondent
responded to a question in the general section (A) that the relevant source bothered them ‘at
least slightly’.
Fields et al (2001). Fields JM, De Jong JM, Gjestland T, Flindell IH, Job RFS, Kurra S, Lercher
P, Vallet M, Yano T, Guski R, Felscher-Suhr U, Schumer R (2001). Standardized generalpurpose noise reaction questions for community noise surveys: research and a
recommendation. J Sound Vibr 242: 641-679.
International Standards Organization (2003). Acoustics - Assessment of noise annoyance by
means of social and socio-acoustic surveys, ISO/TS 15666:2003.
February 2017
Page 13
CAP 1506
3.12
Chapter 3: Methodology
The SoNA 2014 questionnaire design was both peer-reviewed and
underwent cognitive testing to confirm people’s understanding of the
questions asked, and to identify any need for questionnaire improvement
and simplification.
Survey design
3.13
The noise survey questionnaire, the selection and sampling process are
reported and covered separately in Ipsos MORI’s 2014 Survey of Noise
Attitudes (SoNA) technical report13, which provides more detailed
information on the sample strategy agreed, response rates, demographics
of participants, survey questionnaire including show cards and diagrams
showing areas sampled.
3.14
The survey was conducted via face-to-face in-home interviews with
residents aged 18 and over who live in the vicinity of nine airports in
England and took approximately 35 minutes to complete. The survey
employed a random probability methodology, and was conducted with
adults randomly chosen within their household.
3.15
Fieldwork was conducted between 5 October 2014 and 8 February 2015.
The survey selected respondents at random, according to the populations
around the sample airports. All eligible households were located within the
pre-defined noise exposure areas, with a minimum noise threshold being
set at 51dB LAeq,16h, in order to ensure that estimated noise exposure
information remained reliable14. Noise contour information was provided to
allow Ipsos MORI’s in-house sampling unit to draw up the appropriate
sample in each of the nine areas around the following airports:
13
14

Birmingham (BHX)

East Midlands (EMA)

Gatwick (LGW)

Heathrow (LHR)
The 2014 Survey of Noise Attitudes (SoNA) Technical Report, Ipsos MORI, 22 June 2015.
White et al (2010). White S, Beaton D, McMahon J & Rhodes D P, ‘Measurement and
modelling of aircraft noise at low levels’, ERCD Report 1006, Civil Aviation Authority, October
2010.
February 2017
Page 14
CAP 1506
3.16
Chapter 3: Methodology

London City (LCY)

Luton (LTN)

Manchester (MAN)

Newcastle (NCL)

Stansted (STN)
The population exposed to specific levels of aircraft noise was estimated
by the CAA (for Birmingham, Gatwick, Heathrow, Manchester, Newcastle
and Stansted airports) and by Bickerdike Allan and Partners (for East
Midlands, London City, Luton, and Newcastle). This was based on
available data (2013, except for East Midlands, London City and
Newcastle airports, which was 2012 data) and is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Estimated population exposure in the vicinity of the nine largest airports in England (based on
annual movements and ordered alphabetically)
Summer average noise exposure LAeq, 16h (dB)
Airport
51-53.9
54-56.9
57-59.9
60-62.9
63-65.9
66-68.9
13,100
9,100
4,550
2,050
750
50
600
550
200
200
100
5,650
2,450
1,000
350
50
100
<50
228,400
145,750
57,700
24,550
11,700
3,650
900
12,600
10,950
4,450
3,050
350
<50
2,200
2,100
1,750
750
350
<50
30,200
14,100
9,600
2,600
750
350
<50
Newcastle
1,600
1,200
300
<50
Stansted
2,200
1,350
350
100
50
296,500
187,550
79,900
33,700
14,100
4,200
900
Birmingham
East Midlands
Gatwick
Heathrow
London City
Luton
Manchester
Total
69-71.9
>72
100
100
Populations rounded to the nearest 50.
3.17
The original commissioned design was an unclustered sample of private
dwellings in proximity to ten of the largest airports (the above airports
listed and Bristol15). Ipsos MORI originally proposed an unclustered
sample because unclustered samples are more statistically efficient than
15
Bristol was omitted because the CAA did not have adequate data on aircraft noise to enable
robust sampling, and consequently there was an opportunity to improve the sample size at the
other nine airports.
February 2017
Page 15
CAP 1506
Chapter 3: Methodology
clustered ones, as they maximise precision for any given sample size 16.
This was subsequently adapted to a clustered sample for noise levels less
than 54 dB LAeq,16h, but remained unclustered for noise levels greater than
54dB LAeq,16h.
3.18
The sample was allocated in proportion to the population exposed at each
airport (based on Table 1), thus the sampling initially defined was mainly
comprised of people living around London Heathrow, since the majority of
people exposed to aircraft noise in England live around Heathrow airport.
In addition, the sample was modified to undertake disproportionate
sampling by noise level, with two-thirds of the sample allocated to noise
levels above 54 dB LAeq,16h and one third in the band 51-54 dB LAeq,16h.
Without this adjustment the 51-54 dB LAeq,16h band would have accounted
for almost 50 percent of the survey, substantially affecting coverage at
higher noise exposure levels. Additionally, it was agreed to
disproportionately sample by airports, driven by the need to increase the
sample size at Gatwick Airport for subset analysis purposes, and the
desire to keep the proportion of addresses in the sample around airports
other than Heathrow and Gatwick as near to their true proportions as
possible.
3.19
The Civil Aircraft Noise section was preceded by a question checking that
respondents were resident during summer 2014. As 122 interviewees
were not resident during summer 2014, they were excluded. The
remaining sample across all airports was 1,877 interviews. A combination
of population density and size of airport meant that the majority of
respondents live around Heathrow airport (two-thirds of respondents,
three-quarters of weighted responses).
Noise modelling
3.20
The main reference time period for the noise exposure was the 2014
average summer day (16th June to 15th September inclusive). Although,
16
Section 2.1, p.10 of The 2014 Survey of Noise Attitudes (SoNA) Technical Report, Ipsos MORI,
22 June 2015.
February 2017
Page 16
CAP 1506
Chapter 3: Methodology
interviews took place from early October 2014 through to February 2015,
respondents were asked their views on noise during summer 2014.
Previous studies17 have shown that noise attitudes may be more highly
correlated with noise exposure just prior to interview. To test for this
hypothesis, each noise indicator was also estimated based on the
runways used during the 7 days and 30 days immediately preceding
interview. This is discussed in more detail in para 3.26.
3.21
To enable questionnaire responses to be correlated with noise exposure
information, noise exposure was estimated for the following indicators:
3.22

LAeq,16h

Lden

N70

N65
For Birmingham, Gatwick, Heathrow, Manchester, Newcastle and
Stansted airports, noise exposure was estimated using the CAA’s ANCON
model18. For East Midlands, London City and Luton airports, noise
exposure was estimated using the US Federal Aviation Administration’s
Integrated Noise Model (INM)19 by Bickerdike Allan and Partners on
behalf of the respective airport. Although noise exposure information was
estimated using two different noise models, the approach used is
consistent since both models accord with international best practice by
ECAC20, and are adjusted to reflect measurements obtained around each
airport in question.
3.23
LAeq,16h noise exposure information for Luton airport for 2014 was not
available and thus data for 2013 was used instead. N70 information was
17
18
19
20
Brooker etal (1985). Brooker P, Critchley J B, Monkman D J & Richmond C. ‘United Kingdom
Aircraft Noise Index Study: main report’, DR Report 8402, Civil Aviation Authority, January
1985.
Ollerhead et al (1999). Ollerhead J B, Rhodes D P, Vininikainen M S, Monkman D J and
Woodley A C, ‘The UK Civil Aircraft Noise Contour Model, ANCON: Improvements in version 2’,
R&D Report 9842, Civil Aviation Authority, June 1999.
See www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/models/inm_model/.
‘Standard Method of Computing Noise Contours around Civil Airports’, ECAC.CEAC Document
29, European Civil Aviation Conference, December 2005.
February 2017
Page 17
CAP 1506
Chapter 3: Methodology
available for all airports except Luton. Lden information was limited to
Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted airports. N65 data was limited to
Heathrow Gatwick and Stansted airports. Summer average day LAeq,16h
noise exposure contours showing the areas sampled are presented in
Appendix D.
Effect of runway direction
3.24
Irrespective of the noise indicator, aircraft noise exposure is affected by
the direction of use of the runway at an airport. All single runway airports
have two operating directions or operating modes. The proportion of time
in a westerly or easterly operating mode is typically referred to as the
modal split.
3.25
Heathrow airport with its two runways alternates the runway used for
arrivals and departures during periods of westerly operations and thus it
has three operating modes in total. However, because Heathrow’s traffic
is sufficiently constant throughout the day, over the course of a whole day,
there is little difference in average daily noise exposure between the two
westerly modes and thus for the purposes of this study, Heathrow can be
treated as though it has two operating-modes, like the other airports.
3.26
Although respondents were asked their views on aircraft noise
experienced during summer 2014, ANIS21 found that respondents’
attitudes are often better correlated with more recent noise exposure at
the respondent’s location, e.g. the past week or the past month. These
shorter time periods could be associated with substantially different modal
splits and thus different noise exposure. For all airports, except Luton
(where data were not available), the following different temporal noise
exposures were also estimated for each respondent’s location, and for
each available noise indicator:
21

100% westerly-mode

100% easterly-mode
Brooker et al 1985. Brooker P, Critchley J B, Monkman D J & Richmond C. DR Report 8402:
United Kingdom Aircraft Noise Study: Main Report, January 1985.
February 2017
Page 18
CAP 1506
Chapter 3: Methodology

7 day average-modal split prior to interview

30 day average-modal split prior to interview

92 day summer average-modal split

The highest noise level from either the 100% westerly or 100%
easterly modes
3.27
The last indicator simply uses the highest noise exposure that occurred
from either the 100% westerly or 100% easterly operating modes. Note
that, irrespective of the modal split applied, the number and types of
aircraft operating are for a 16 hour average summer day for LAeq,16h, N70
and N65 respectively, and the 24 hour average annual day for Lden.
February 2017
Page 19
CAP 1506
Chapter 4: Social survey results
Chapter 4
Social survey results
Introduction
4.1
This chapter presents an overview of the social survey results. It includes
information on:

Demographic, household and dwelling characteristics of the sample
respondents
4.2

Attitudes to noise (all sources)

Noise sensitivity

Attitudes to the environment
Throughout this chapter all results are presented on a weighted basis in
order to enable comparison across airports and noise bands, even though
the sampling technique which had to be used means they are not
nationally representative.
Survey design, responses and weighting
4.3
Responses have been weighted to account for differing probabilities of
selection by airport and noise band, dwelling and household selection
probability (where there are multiple dwellings and households at a single
address) and individual selection weight, where there are multiple adults
aged 18 or over at each household selected. A weighting was applied to
correct for oversampling higher noise bands and oversampling at Gatwick
airport22.
22
The largest single component of the weighting relates to respondents living near Gatwick.
These were over-sampled (n=202) to allow for subset analysis, but in the overall sample this is
weighted down to 31 responses to reflect the appropriate percentage of the population, see
table 3 and table 2.2 of the Ipsos MORI Survey report.
February 2017
Page 20
CAP 1506
Chapter 4: Social survey results
SoNA 2014 in the context of SoNA 2013
4.4
This section presents information on demographic, household and
dwelling information of the SoNA 2014 sample. It includes a comparison
of the SoNA 2014 sample against the SoNA 2013 sample and the Census
2011 for England. Comparing the SoNA 2014 sample with the SoNA 2013
sample, although there are some similarities, the SoNA 2014 sample are
younger, with fewer retired respondents and with a greater proportion in
rented accommodation. However, it must be remembered that the SoNA
2014 is not intended to represent a national sample, as respondents were
required to live within the vicinity of a civil airport and be exposed to an
average summer day noise exposure level of at least 51dB L Aeq,16h.
Demographic, household and dwelling Information for the SoNA
2014 sample
4.5
Table 2 presents demographic information for the SoNA 2014 sample
compared with SoNA 2013.
Table 2: Demographic Information for SoNA 2014, compared with SoNA 2013
SoNA 2014
SoNA 2013
N=1,847
% (N)
N=2,383
% (N)
How long have you lived in this home? (Question A1) 23
Less than 6 months
2.4% (44)
6.1% (146)
7.9% (146)
6.2% (147)
1 - 2 years
12.1% (223)
7.2% (172)
2 - 5 years
17% (314)
13.3% (317)
5 - 10 years
16.5% (304)
15.9% (378)
10 years or more
43.9% (812)
51.3% (1222)
0.2% (3)
n/a
Being bought on a mortgage
27.4% (507)
34.7% (826)
Owned outright by household
24.2% (447)
36.2% (863)
16% (295)
5.5% (130)
6 months - 1 year
Don’t know
Home ownership (Question H3)
Rented from local authority
23
Survey question ID.
February 2017
Page 21
CAP 1506
Chapter 4: Social survey results
Rented from housing association
10.5% (193)
5.9% (141)
Rented from private landlord
19.2% (354)
15.2% (363)
0.6% (11)
0.5% (12)
0.2% (4)
0.8% (18)
Other
1.1% (20)
0.7% (16)
Refused
0.9% (17)
0.6% (14)
42.5% (785)
32.6% (777)
Choice made with someone else in the household
39% (721)
49.6% (1183)
Choice made by someone else in the household
7.1% (130)
11.0% (261)
Choice made by landlord (e.g. Local Authority, housing
association)
9.8% (181)
2.6% (63)
0.6% (11)
1.4% (34)
Born here
0.2% (4)
n/a
Convenient for family / work / school
0.1% (2)
n/a
Inherited the property
0.1% (3)
n/a
0% (0)
n/a
Other
0.2% (3)
2.6% (62)
Refused
0.3% (6)
0.2% (4)
n/a
2.6% (62)
18 – 19 years
2.3% (42)
1.8% (43)
20 – 24 years
6.0% (111)
6.7% (159)
25 – 34 years
20.7% (383)
15.3% (365)
35 – 44 years
22.0% (407)
15.7% (375)
45 – 54 years
17.4% (321)
17.4% (415)
55 – 64 years
14.2% (263)
15.7% (375)
65 – 74 years
10.7% (197)
15.2% (362)
6.3% (116)
9.5% (228)
0.4% (8)
n/a
Male
49.1% (907)
49.5% (1181)
Female
50.9% (940)
50.5% (1202)
Shared ownership
Tied to employment
How did you come to be living here (Question H4)
My choice
Choice made by someone else outside the household, e.g.
employer
The property owner is my partner / I moved in
Age of respondent (Question H5)
16-17 years
75 years or older
Refused
Gender of respondent (Question H6)
Any infants, children or teenagers in household (0-17 years) (Question H7a)
No
February 2017
55.3% (1021)
68.6% (1634)
Page 22
CAP 1506
Chapter 4: Social survey results
Yes
44.7% (826)
31.4% (749)
52.1% (962)
40.5% (966)
Working part time
12% (221)
14.5% (345)
Unemployed and looking for work
4.2% (78)
3.8% (90)
Retired from paid work altogether
17.6% (324)
26.5% (630)
3.7% (68)
5.8% (138)
6.8% (125)
6.3% (150)
3.3% (62)
2.4% (57)
0.3% (6)
0.3% (6)
19.6% (361)
17.3% (413)
Employment Status of respondent (Question H8)
Working full time (30 hours a week or more)
In full-time education
Looking after the home or family
Something else
Refused
Working at home (Question H9a)
Sometimes work at home
How many days in a typical week do you work from home? (Question H9b)
- % given for N = 361 who work at home
Less than 3
59.2% (214)
53.9% (222)
3 to 4
11.5% (42)
9.7% (40)
5 to 7
15.7% (57)
16.1% (66)
Varies
12.5% (45)
20.4% (85)
A/B
25.4% (470)
28.1% (671)
C1
36.2% (669)
30.3% (722)
C2
15.2% (281)
21.2% (504)
D
12.4% (229)
10.9% (260)
E
9.8% (180)
9.5% (226)
0.9% (17)
n/a
Social grade of head of household (Question H13a)
Don’t know
NB: the question numbers in the table reflect the numbering in SoNA 2014, not SoNA 2013.
The N for each variable/question may add to ±1 of the expected sample totals due to weighting and
rounding.
4.6
Just under one-quarter of the sample owned their home outright,
compared with over one-third for SoNA 2013 (36%), with just over a
further one-quarter purchasing their home with a mortgage, compared
with over one-third for SoNA 2013 (35%). Almost half of the sample (46%)
rented their home either from the local authority, a housing association, or
from a private landlord, compared with one-quarter (27%) for SoNA 2013.
Almost half of the sample had a household that included infants, children
or teenagers (0-17 years of age) (45%), compared with one-third for
February 2017
Page 23
CAP 1506
Chapter 4: Social survey results
SoNA 2013 (31%). Half of the SoNA 2014 sample was female. The
sample ranged in age from 18 years to over 75 years with a median age
of 35-44 years, compared with a median age of 45-54 years for SoNA
2013. Just over half of the sample (52%) worked full-time, compared with
41% for SoNA 2013, and just under one-fifth (18%) were retired in SoNA
2014, compared with 27% for SoNA 2013.
4.7
Table 3 presents dwelling information for the SoNA 2014 sample and
compares it with SoNA 2013.
Table 3: Dwelling Information for SoNA 2014 compared with SoNA 2013
SoNA 2014
SoNA 2013
N=1,847
% (N)
N=2,383
% (N)
31.6% (584)
9.7% (232)
Converted flat/maisonette
8.9% (165)
3.1% (74)
Semi-detached/end of terrace house
20% (370)
34.7% (827)
11.7% (216)
19.0% (454)
8% (148)
20.9% (497)
18.3% (337)
12.0% (285)
Cluster home
0.6% (11)
n/a
Other
0.8% (15)
0.6% (14)
No
29.6% (546)
6.9% (164)
Yes
70.4% (1300)
93.1% (2219)
5.1% (95)
n/a
Yes
69.1% (1275)
n/a24
No
12.5% (231)
4.6% (111)
Don’t know
13.3% (245)
n/a
Before 1919
16% (295)
17.6% (419)
1919 – 1940
16.3% (301)
17.4% (415)
1941 – 1960
14% (258)
14.0% (335)
Type of house (Question A2)
Purpose built flat/maisonette
Mid-terrace house
Detached house
Bungalow
Access to garden or other private outdoor space (Question A3)
Double glazing in the home (Question Dblglaze)
Missing information
Age of home (Question H2)
24
SoNA 2013 reported double-glazing on all or some rooms and thus the response cannot be
compared to SoNA 2014.
February 2017
Page 24
CAP 1506
Chapter 4: Social survey results
1961 – 1990
17.2% (318)
31.3% (746)
1991 – 2000
5.8% (106)
5.4% (129)
2001 – 2010
4.8% (90)
6.4% (151)
2011 – 2014
0.7% (14)
1.6% (39)
25.2% (465)
6.3% (150)
Don’t know
4.8
Just under one-quarter of the sample owned their home outright,
compared with over one-third for SoNA 2013 (36%), with just over a
further one-quarter purchasing their home with a mortgage, compared
with over one-third for SoNA 2013 (35%). Almost half of the sample (46%)
rented their home either from the local authority, a housing association, or
from a private landlord, compared with one-quarter (27%) for SoNA 2013.
Almost half of the sample had a household that included infants, children
or teenagers (0-17 years of age) (45%), compared with one-third for
SoNA 2013 (31%). Half of the SoNA 2014 sample was female. The
sample ranged in age from 18 years to over 75 years with a median age
of 35-44 years, compared with a median age of 45-54 years for SoNA
2013. Just over half of the sample (52%) worked full-time, compared with
41% for SoNA 2013, and just under one-fifth (18%) were retired in SoNA
2014, compared with 27% for SoNA 2013.
4.9
Table 3 presents dwelling information for the SoNA 2014 sample and
compares it with SoNA 2013.
Table 4: Demographic distribution of SoNA 2014 data and the 2011 Census for England
SoNA 2014
Census 2011
England
Age (Question H5)
16 – 17 years
n/a
3.1%
18 – 19 years
2.3%
3.2%
20 – 24 years
6.0%
8.4%
25 – 34 years
20.7%
16.7%
35 – 44 years
22.0%
17.3%
45 – 54 years
17.4%
16.9%
55 – 64 years
14.2%
14.4%
64 – 74 years
10.7%
10.6%
6.3%
9.6%
75 years or older
February 2017
Page 25
CAP 1506
Chapter 4: Social survey results
Refused
0.4%
n/a
50.9%
50.8%
Working full time (30 hours a week or more)
52.1%
47.1%
Working part time
12.0%
17.2%
Unemployed and looking for work
4.2%
4.5%
Retired from paid work altogether
17.6%
14.2%
In full-time education
3.7%
3.6%
Looking after the home or family
6.8%
4.5%
Something else
3.3%
8.9%
Refused
0.3%
n/a
A/B
25.4%
23.0%
C1
36.2%
30.9%
C2
15.2%
20.6%
D/E
22.2%
25.5%
0.9%
n/a
Respondent Gender (Question H6)
Female
Which of these best describes your current situation? (Question H8)
Social Grade based on Chief Income Earner (Question H13a)
Don’t know
4.10
The SoNA 2014 is very similar in terms of gender and full-time
employment. Compared with the 2011 Census, the SoNA 2014 sample is
under represented in part-time workers and is slightly over-represented by
retired people. The socio-demographic status is similar for social group
A/B, however there is an over-representation of social group C1 and a
corresponding under representation of social groups C2 and D/E. In terms
of age groups, SoNA 2014 is over-represented by the 25-34 and 35-44
years age groups, but under-represented in the 18-19 and 20-24 years
age groups.
Noise sensitivity
4.11
Question A7b sought views on how noise sensitive respondents reported
themselves to be, the results of which are presented in Table 5 alongside
the equivalent self-reported responses for SoNA 2013.
February 2017
Page 26
CAP 1506
Chapter 4: Social survey results
Table 5: Self-reported noise sensitivity
SoNA 2014
SoNA 2013
% (N)
% (N)
1 Not at all sensitive
17.2% (410)
13.7% (252)
2
16.7% (397)
17.5% (322)
3
15.3% (364)
16.4% (303)
4
19.7% (470)
21.6% (399)
5
15.8% (377)
13.1% (242)
6
5.9% (141)
8.8% (162)
7 Highly sensitive
9.3% (222)
8.6% (160)
4.12
Noise sensitivity of respondents for SoNA 2014 is similar to that found for
SoNA 2013, although the differences for a rating of 1, 5 and 6 are
statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Attitudes to key environmental problems
4.13
Table 6 presents information on attitudes to key environmental problems
and asked respondents to select their top five. Traffic congestion, parking,
speed or danger, was cited by just over half (53%) of the SoNA 2014
sample, compared with 43% for SoNA 2013. 34% of the SoNA 2014 cited
noise, compared with 15% for SoNA 2013, and 23% cited air pollution
from traffic or local industry/agriculture, compared with 7% for SoNA 2013.
Table 6: Attitudes to key environmental problems
N=1,847
% (N)
N=2,383
% (N)
A6 SoNA 2014 Please look at this list of environmental problems. Which FIVE would you say
you are personally most affected by?
Traffic congestion, parking, speed or danger
52.6% (971)
43.1% (1027)
Litter and/or rubbish
35.6% (657)
32.0% (764)
Noise
33.8% (624)
15.2% (363)
Fouling by dogs
24.9% (460)
34.3% (816)
Air pollution from traffic or local industry/agriculture
23.5% (435)
7.4% (177)
15% (277)
9.4% (223)
Dust and dirt
12.6% (233)
7.4% (175)
None of these
12.4% (228)
n/a
Pests, including wild/feral animals, birds, insects or fouling by
animals other than dogs
February 2017
Page 27
CAP 1506
Chapter 4: Social survey results
Smells
11% (202)
7.8% (186)
Loss of natural environment – gardens, green spaces or
plant/animal life
8.5% (156)
8.9% (213)
Light pollution from streetlights, floodlights, security lights, shops,
and other artificial light from outside the house
8.3% (154)
7.8% (187)
Extreme weather (e.g. flooding, drought, high winds, snow and
ice)
6.5% (121)
10.4% (247)
4.1% (76)
2.8% (67)
Pollution of rivers, lakes, the sea, beaches, etc.
4.14
The SoNA 2014 survey, like previous surveys also sought views on noise
disturbance from a variety of sources. In the 2014 survey 12% of
respondents reported being very or extremely bothered, annoyed or
disturbed by road traffic noise, whereas in the 2013 survey the proportion
was 7%. In the 2014 survey 7% of respondents reported being very or
extremely bothered, annoyed or disturbed by neighbours/people nearby,
whereas in the 2013 survey the proportion was 11%. In the 2014 survey
8% of respondents reported being very or extremely bothered, annoyed or
disturbed by construction noise, whereas in the 2013 survey the
proportion was 4%.
4.15
It must be noted that these findings do not reflect any nationally
representative year to year change as the sampling for the two surveys
was very different.
February 2017
Page 28
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Chapter 5
Noise exposure and annoyance
Introduction
5.1
This chapter focuses on the analysis undertaken to address three of the
five survey aims which are:

Obtain new and updated evidence on attitudes to aviation noise
around airports in England, including the effects of aviation noise on
annoyance, wellbeing and health.

Obtain new and updated evidence on what influences attitudes to
aviation noise, and how attitudes vary, particularly how attitudes vary
with LAeq, but also other non-acoustic factors that may influence
attitudes, such as location and time of day, and socio economic
group of respondents.

Examine whether the currently used measure of annoyance, LAeq, is
the appropriate measure of annoyance for measuring the impact on
people living around major airports.
5.2
In particular it focuses on how attitudes and annoyance vary with noise
exposure level, based on four different noise indicators and six different
temporal definitions of each noise indicator. The effect of non-acoustic
factors is covered in Chapter 7.
Number of respondents by noise exposure
5.3
Although respondents were selected based on 2013 average summer day
noise exposure, their noise exposure was estimated for a 2014 average
summer day using records of air traffic and distributions of flights by
arrival and departure routes from summer 2014.
5.4
As explained in paragraphs 3.24-3.26, wind patterns can affect the
direction of use of an airport’s runway over a summer period and
February 2017
Page 29
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
consequently affect noise exposure levels. Table 7 compares the runway
modal split between summer 2013 and summer 2014.
Table 7: Runway modal split by airport for summer 2013 and summer 2014
Summer 2013 modal split
% west / % east
Summer 2014 modal split
% west / % east
61% / 39%
62% / 38%
n/a
73% / 27%
Gatwick
69% / 31%
64% / 36%
Heathrow
74% / 26%
68% / 32%
London City
n/a
62% / 38%
Luton
n/a
n/a
84% / 16%
76% / 24%
n/a
55% / 45%
71% / 29%
54% / 46%
Airport
Birmingham
East Midlands
Manchester
Newcastle
Stansted
5.5
Tables 8 to 11 show the numbers of weighted responses obtained at nine
airports for the four noise exposure variables used in this analysis.
Table 8: Respondents categorised by 2014 summer average mode L Aeq,16h (N=1,847)
Noise exposure
variable average
summer day
LAeq, 16h (dB)
Airport
BHX
EMA
48.0 – 50.9
LGW
LHR
1
74
LCY
LTN
MAN
NCL
STN
Total
2
79
2
51.0 – 53.9
28
1
15
644
3
7
86
3
5
792
54.0 – 56.9
34
2
9
360
63
5
36
3
3
515
57.0 – 59.9
20
3
178
16
6
34
2
2
261
60.0 – 62.9
8
1
103
6
1
8
≥ 63
1
61
5
2
1
Total
90
1,419
93
21
168
5.6
1
5
31
129
8
1
71
12
1,847
In Table 8, the 2014 average summer day noise exposure for 79
respondents was found to be less than 51 dB L Aeq,16h, but greater than
49 dB LAeq,16h so they were assigned to a 48-50.9 dB LAeq,16h band. This
occurred due to a combination of changes in traffic levels, changes in
flight routings associated with airspace trials and changes in wind patterns
February 2017
Page 30
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
that affected some airports compared with 2013 values. These
respondents were, nevertheless retained for analysis within the study.
Table 9: Respondents categorised by 2014 annual average mode 24hr L den (N=1,462)
Average annual
24hr Lden (dB)
Gatwick
Heathrow
Stansted
Total
50.0 – 52.9
5
194
0
199
53.0 – 55.9
13
579
6
598
56.0 – 58.9
8
333
3
344
59.0 – 61.9
3
165
2
170
62.0 – 64.9
1
89
0
91
≥ 65
1
59
1
60
Total
31
1,419
12
1,462
5.7
In Table 9, the average annual 24hr Lden noise exposure is approximately
1.5 dB lower than LAeq,16h and thus Lden lends itself to being in 3 dB bands,
starting at 50 dB Lden.
Table 10: Respondents categorised by 2014 summer average number of events ≥70 dB L Amax (N70)
(N=1,826)
Average summer day
number of events
≥70dB LAmax
Airport
BHX
EMA
<1
LGW
LHR
LCY
MAN
10
499
11
306
80
20
4
4
27
25 – 49
14
1
4
160
50 – 99
25
3
2
193
79
14
100 – 199
24
1
1
124
13
25
2
125
≥ 400
Total
6
429
202
1
322
5
194
30
158
11
Total
5.8
STN
509
1 – 24
200 – 399
NCL
90
5
31
1,419
11
93
168
8
12
1,826
In Table 10, N70 refers to the number of events of ≥70 dB L Amax that
respondents were estimated to have been exposed to during an average
summer day in 2014. Bands were defined in intervals using a geometric
scale (doubling of N) to provide consistency with the 3dB wide bands
used for LAeq,16h, though it was necessary to separate out respondents
exposed to less than 1 event; 509 weighted responses (28%) were found
February 2017
Page 31
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
to have experienced no noise events of ≥70 dB LAmax, even though they
experience LAeq,16h levels between 48 and 53.9 dB.
Table 11: Respondents categorised by 2014 summer average number of events ≥65 dB LAmax (N65)
(N=1,462)
Average summer day number of events
of ≥65dB LAmax
Airport
Gatwick
Heathrow
Stansted
<1
Total
10
499
11
306
1 – 24
27
25 – 49
14
1
4
160
50 – 99
25
3
2
193
100 – 199
24
1
1
124
2
125
200 – 399
≥ 400
11
Total
5.9
90
5
31
1,419
In Table 11, because of the large number of respondents who were
exposed to no events ≥70 dB LAmax, an additional noise indicator of the
number of events ≥65 dB LAmax (N65) was also assessed for respondents
surveyed around Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. At all sites there was
at least one noise event ≥65 dB LAmax per average summer day. The
same banding of number of events was used as for N70.
Noise annoyance
Sampling rationale
5.10
When looking at evidence on attitudes to noise, many surveys obtain a
number of responses within a narrow geographical location that can be
defined as a single noise exposure value and compare attitudes across
different geographical locations that are exposed to different noise levels.
5.11
For SoNA 2014, a slightly different approach was taken. To maximise the
number of locations considered it was necessary to group annoyance
responses by noise exposure band. A 3 dB wide band was chosen to
balance noise exposure variation and sample sizes. In practice, because
locations were randomly sampled within each noise band, the average
February 2017
Page 32
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
exposure within each band was close to the mid-band interval. For
example, the average LAeq,16h exposure for respondents in the 51-54 dB
band was 52.5 dB.
Survey questions on annoyance
5.12
All respondents who had been resident at their current address during
summer 2014 were asked questions on Civil Aircraft Noise. However,
some questions were not asked if the respondent answered that they
were not at all bothered by civil aircraft noise of any kind at any time, thus
table totals may not always agree with the sample details given in
Chapter 4.
5.13
The annoyance question used is that defined by ISO25, and was applied
using two scales also recommended by ISO, one with a five-point verbal
rating scale (CAN1) and one with an 11-point numerical rating scale
(CAN34). For both questions annoyance is characterised as ‘being
bothered, disturbed or annoyed’, however throughout this document such
responses are simply referred to as annoyance responses.
5.14
CAN1 was presented as a matrix question, seeking views on overall
annoyance from civil aircraft, but also views on noise associated with
specific types of operation and specific times of day.
25
ISO/TS 15666:2003, Assessment of noise annoyance by means of social and socio-acoustic
surveys, Technical Specification, first edition, 1st February 2003.
February 2017
Page 33
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
CAN1: So, thinking about this summer, when you were here at home, how
much did each of these different types of noise from aeroplanes bother,
disturb or annoy you?
Not at all
Slightly
Moderately
Very
Extremely
Don’t know
i
Overall noise of all kinds, from aeroplanes






ii
Noise from aeroplanes on the ground at an
airport (e.g. taxiing planes, engine testing)






iii
Noise from aeroplanes taking off and climbing






iv
Noise from aeroplanes descending and landing






v
Noise from aeroplanes in flight






vi
Noise from aeroplanes during the day
(7 a.m. – 11 p.m.)






vii
Noise from aeroplanes during the night
(11 p.m. – 7 a.m.)






5.15
Although annoyance has been long been considered a daytime noise
effect in UK policy (as distinct from night time sleep disturbance), the
study assessed responses to two questions, one on overall aeroplane
noise (CAN1i) and noise from aeroplanes during the daytime (CAN1vi).
5.16
Question CAN34 used an 11 point numerical scale, but unlike CAN1, was
presented as a single question with no time of day subdivision:
CAN34: Thinking about this summer, what number from 0 to 10 best shows
how much you were bothered, disturbed or annoyed by noise from aeroplanes.
Not at all
Extremely
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Don’t
know












5.17
In addition to questions CAN1 and CAN34, an earlier question, A9a, was
asked seeking general attitudes on aircraft, airport or airfield noise, using
the ISO recommended methodology and a 5-point verbal scale. This
question was followed by similar questions on other sources of noise,
including both transport and non-transport sources.
February 2017
Page 34
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
A9a. Thinking about the last 12 months or so, when you are here at home, how
much does noise from aircraft, airports or airfields, bother, disturb or annoy
you?

Not at all

Slightly

Moderately

Very

Extremely

Don’t know

Don’t hear
Annoyance scores
5.18
Although some comparisons can be made across the different survey
questions the use of different scales limits the extent to which direct
comparisons can be made. It has therefore become standard practice to
transform annoyance scales used in such surveys onto a 0 to 100 scale.
This technique has been used by Miedema & Oudshoorn (2001)26, van
Kempen & van Kamp (2005)27 and in the ANASE study (2007)28. Different
scales are transformed onto a 0 to 100 scale assuming equal width
categories such that:
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑖 =
5.19
100(𝑖 − 1⁄2)
𝑚
This gives the relationships between the 5 and 11 point scales and
annoyance scores shown in Table 12.
26
27
28
Miedema & Oudshoorn (2001). Miedema H M E & Oudshoorn C G M, “Annoyance from
Transportation Noise: Relationships with Exposure Metrics DNL and DENL and Their
Confidence Intervals”, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 109, Number 4, April 2001.
van Kempen & van Kamp (2005). van Kempen E E M M & van Kamp I, “Annoyance from air
traffic noise: Possible trends in exposure-response relationships”, Report 01/2005, RIVM, 2005.
Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England, November 2007.
February 2017
Page 35
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Table 12: Transformation of 5 and 11-point scales to a 0 to 100 scale
5 point verbal scale
11 point numerical scale
Annoyance
category
Scale
boundary
Scale
mid-point
Annoyance
category
Scale
boundary
Scale
mid-point
Not at all
0.0 – 19.0
10
0
0.0 – 8.9
4.5
Slightly
20.0 – 39.9
30
1
9.0 – 17.9
13.6
Moderately
40.0 – 59.9
50
2
18.0 – 26.9
22.7
Very
60.0 – 79.9
70
3
27.0 – 35.9
31.8
Extremely
80.0 – 100.0
90
4
36.0 – 44.9
40.9
5
45.0 – 54.9
50.0
6
55.0 – 63.9
59.1
7
64.0 – 72.9
68.2
8
73.0 – 81.9
77.3
9
92.0 – 90.9
86.4
10
91.0 – 100.0
95.5
5.20
Having transformed responses onto common scales, annoyance scores to
each question were compared in order to determine the integrity and
consistency of the responses. Table 13 and Figure 1 shows the mean
annoyance score for the three questions as a function of average summer
day LAeq,16h noise band. Figure 1 also includes 95% confidence intervals
around the mean annoyance scores.
Table 13: Mean annoyance scores in SoNA 2014 survey as a function of average summer day L Aeq,16h
noise exposure (N=1,844)
Mean annoyance score
Average summer
day LAeq, 16h (dB)
N
48.0 – 50.9
95% confidence interval
A9a
CAN1i
CAN34
A9a
CAN1i
CAN34
79
31.2
28.2
23.1
±5.4
±5.0
±5.2
51.0 – 53.9
790
30.2
28.2
27.4
±1.7
±1.6
±1.6
54.0 – 56.9
515
40.0
39.6
41.5
±2.3
±2.3
±2.4
57.0 – 59.9
260
45.1
44.5
43.9
±3.1
±3.2
±3.5
60.0 – 62.9
129
47.1
45.4
46.5
±4.0
±4.3
±4.7
≥ 63
71
50.0
48.6
51.8
±6.1
±6.0
±6.2
Total
1,844
-
-
-
February 2017
Page 36
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Figure 1: Plot of mean annoyance scores in SoNA 2014 survey as a function of average summer day
LAeq,16h noise exposure
70
Mean annoyance score
60
50
40
A9a (5-point ISO)
30
CAN1i (5-point ISO)
CAN34 (11-point ISO)
20
10
0
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
Average summer day LAeq,16h (dB)
Error bars show 95% confidence intervals of the mean scores.
5.21
Mean annoyance scores were also calculated for the indicators L den, N70
and N65, which are shown in Tables 14 to 16 and Figures 2 to 4
respectively.
Table 14: Mean annoyance scores in SoNA 2014 survey as a function of average annual day 24h Lden
noise exposure (N=1,462)
Mean annoyance score
Average
annual day
LAeq, 16h (dB)
Average
Lden
N
50.0 – 52.9
52.2
53.0 – 55.9
95% confidence interval
A9a
CAN1i
CAN3
4
A9a
CAN1i
CAN34
199
30.5
29.2
25.0
±3.2
±3.0
±3.1
54.3
598
30.4
28.5
28.9
±1.9
±1.8
±1.8
56.0 – 58.9
57.3
344
41.1
40.7
41.8
±2.7
±2.8
±2.9
59.0 – 61.9
60.3
170
47.8
46.7
47.1
±4.0
±4.0
±4.2
62.0 – 64.9
63.3
91
49.4
48.7
50.9
±4.6
±5.0
±5.3
≥ 63
67.1
60
48.0
44.7
47.5
±6.4
±6.7
±6.9
Total
-
1,462
-
-
-
-
-
-
February 2017
Page 37
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Figure 2: Plot of mean annoyance scores in SoNA 2014 survey as a function of average annual day 24hr
Lden noise exposure
70
Mean annoyance score
60
50
40
A9a (5-point ISO)
30
CAN1i (5-point ISO)
CAN34 (11-point ISO)
20
10
0
50
53
56
59
62
65
68
Average annual day Lden (dB)
Error bars show 95% confidence intervals of the mean scores.
Table 15: Mean annoyance scores in SoNA 2014 survey as a function of average summer day, 16 hour
N70 noise exposure (N=1,823)
Average
summer day
number of
events ≥70
(dBA)
Average
number of
events ≥70
dB LAmax in
band
Mean annoyance score
N
<1
0
1-24
95% confidence interval
A9a
CAN1i
CAN34
A9a
CAN1i
CAN34
507
28.7
26.9
28.8
±2.2
±2.0
±2.1
10
429
34.4
32.0
30.7
±2.4
±2.2
±2.5
25-49
37
202
35.4
36.2
34.3
±3.4
±3.4
±3.4
50-99
71
322
42.9
41.8
41.3
±2.9
±3.0
±3.2
100-199
142
194
46.5
46.4
46.1
±3.5
±3.7
±4.1
200-399
273
158
46.8
46.2
48.7
±3.8
±4.2
±4.2
≥400
471
11
56.4
47.6
51.5
±16.6
±14.0
±17.5
Total
-
1,823
-
-
-
-
-
-
February 2017
Page 38
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Figure 3: Plot of mean annoyance scores in SoNA 2014 survey as a function of average summer day, 16
hour N70 noise exposure
70
Mean Annoyance Score
60
50
40
A9a (ISO 5-point scale)
30
CAN1i (ISO 5-point scale)
CAN34 (ISO 11-point scale)
20
10
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
Average summer day number of noise events ≥70 dB LAmax
Error bars show 95% confidence intervals of the mean scores.
Table 16: Mean annoyance scores in SoNA 2014 survey as a function of average summer day, 16 hour
N65 noise exposure (N=1,460)
Average
summer day
number of
events ≥65
(dBA)
Average
number of
events ≥65
dB LAmax in
band
Mean annoyance score
N
1-24
11
25-49
95% confidence interval
A9a
CAN1i
CAN34
A9a
CAN1i
CAN34
400
26.0
23.9
25.6
±2.3
±2.1
±2.2
38
171
35.3
33.3
31.6
±3.5
±3.5
±3.5
50-99
72
254
35.8
35.0
34.1
±3.1
±2.9
±3.0
100-199
152
271
41.5
41.2
40.9
±3.1
±3.2
±3.3
200-399
297
299
46.3
45.6
45.1
±2.7
±2.9
±3.1
≥400
528
64
49.0
44.6
49.8
±6.6
±6.6
±6.8
Total
-
1,460
-
-
-
-
-
-
February 2017
Page 39
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Figure 4: Plot of mean annoyance scores in SoNA 2014 survey as a function of average summer day, 16
hour N65 noise exposure
70
Mean annoyance score
60
50
40
A9a (ISO 5-point scale)
30
CAN1i (ISO 5-point scale)
CAN34 (ISO 11-point scale)
20
10
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Average summer day number of noise events ≥65 dB LAmax
Error bars show 95% confidence intervals of the mean scores.
Relationship between different noise indicators and mean
annoyance score
5.22
In order to identify whether one noise indicator is more strongly
associated with mean annoyance score, a logistic function was fitted
through the mean annoyance scores plotted for each noise indicator. A
logistic function29 is preferred as it is naturally bounded between 0 and
100%, unlike other types of functions. The correlation of determination (r2)
of a logistic function fitted using ordinary least-squares regression for
each noise indicator is shown in Table 17.
29
The data points are close to linear and correlation does not significantly change whether a
linear, polynomial or logistic function is used. A logistic function, however, avoids the situation
where a linear or polynomial function predicts zero or negative annoyance at low noise
exposure.
February 2017
Page 40
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Table 17: Coefficients of determination between different noise indicators and mean annoyance score
Weighted responses
r2
92 day LAeq,16h
1,460
0.874
Annual Lden 24h
1,460
0.707
92 day N70 16h
1,460
0.598
92 day N65 16h
1,460
0.619
Noise indicator
5.23
Whilst numerically the r2 values show that LAeq,16h correlates better with
mean annoyance score, in practice, all the noise indicators show
adequate correlation. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that any
of the indicators assessed is better than LAeq,16h.
Effect of runway direction
5.24
As explained in Chapter 3, noise exposure levels at individual locations
may be substantially affected by the direction of use of an airport’s
runway.
5.25
For safety reasons, aircraft are generally required to take-off or land into
wind. In the UK, the predominant wind direction is a south-westerly wind
and, as a result, most UK airports have runways aligned east-west or
south-west-north-east. Most take-offs and landings operate in an east to
west direction and are colloquially referred to as westerly-mode
operations. Conversely, during periods of easterly winds, take-offs and
landings operate in a west to east direction and are colloquially referred to
as easterly-mode operations.
5.26
This is the case for the nine study airports, with the exception of
Birmingham airport, whose runway is aligned north-west-south-east, in
which case westerly-mode refers to the south-east-north-west mode and
easterly-mode refers to north-west-south-east mode.
5.27
Because different flight paths are used depending on the runway
direction, there can be substantial differences in noise exposure
experienced at some residential locations, in excess of 10dB. Although
respondents were asked to give their views ‘about the summer’,
February 2017
Page 41
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
interviews took place over a five month period with large variations in the
proportion of operating mode used at many of the study airports. ANIS
found that annoyance responses correlated much better with shorter term
definitions of noise exposure experienced prior to interview.
5.28
To examine the effects of changes in noise exposure in the time
preceding interview, for each respondents dwelling location, noise
exposure was re-estimated for six different temporal variations:

92 day summer average modal split

30 day summer average modal split prior to interview

7 day summer average modal split prior to interview

Summer average westerly day

Summer average easterly day

Summer day highest noise level from either the 100% westerly or
100% easterly modes
5.29
A logistic function was fitted to mean annoyance score and LAeq,16h noise
exposure based on the six temporal variations defined in paragraph 3.26
and correlation of the logistic function for each temporal variation is
presented in Table 18.
Table 18: Correlation between temporal variations of LAeq,16h noise exposure and mean annoyance score
N
r2
92 day average mode
1,844
0.882
30 day average mode
1,844
0.828
7 day average mode
1,844
0.687
Westerly day
1,844
0.207
Easterly day
1,844
0.952
Highest noise level of either westerly or easterly mode
1,844
0.877
Noise indicator
5.30
Of the average-modes, the 92 day average correlates with mean
annoyance score better (higher r2) than a 30 day or 7 day average.
Somewhat surprisingly, easterly day noise exposure has the highest r 2
(0.95), whereas a westerly day has the lowest r2 (0.21). Closer
examination shows that 70% of survey respondents were exposed to
westerly noise, consistent with prevailing wind direction and noise
February 2017
Page 42
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
exposure at English airports. The mean annoyance scores (Figure 5),
however, show that attitudes to easterly or westerly noise differ markedly
below 55dB LAeq,16h. When, westerly day noise exposure falls below 51dB
LAeq,16h, indicating easterly noise dominates, annoyance scores remain
constant, leading to poor correlation. In contrast annoyance scores
continue to reduce with reducing easterly noise exposure, even for the
majority exposed to predominantly westerly-mode noise. The higher
annoyance associated with easterly, as oppose to westerly operations,
may be due to the relatively infrequent use of easterly operations at UK
airports.
5.31
In contrast easterly noise exposure, which occurs much less frequently
than a westerly day due to westerly prevailing winds is highly correlated
(r2=0.95). The indicator based on highest noise exposure from either the
easterly or westerly modes, correlates with annoyance as well as the 92
day summer average.
Figure 5: Mean annoyance score plotted as a function of easterly and westerly day L Aeq,16h noise
exposure
60
Mean annoyance score
50
40
30
Easterly Day LAeq,16h
Westerly Day LAeq,16h
20
10
0
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
69
Summer day easterly or westerly noise exposure, LAeq,16h (dB)
February 2017
Page 43
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Airport developments, consultations and trials during 2014
5.32
During 2014, several of the airports surveyed announced developments,
undertook consultations and/or operated airspace trials that altered the
noise exposure in their vicinity, leading to both increases and decreases
in noise exposure at certain locations. Regardless of whether noise
exposure differed during summer 2014 from previous years, these
changes may have also affected expectations or heightened awareness of
aircraft noise and may have had an impact on attitudes given in survey
interviews. Details of relevant developments, consultations and trials are
summarised in Appendix E.
Percentage highly annoyed
5.33
The preceding analysis used mean annoyance score. In aircraft noise
assessment it has become common practice to focus on those individuals
that are said to be highly annoyed. In their landmark works, both Shultz 30
and Miedema et al31 defined high annoyance as a cut-off of 72 on a 100
point scale.
5.34
Using the 100 point scales in Table 12, the cut-offs for the 5 and 11 point
scales are:

5-point scale: ‘Extremely annoyed’ (category 5) + 0.4 x ‘Very
annoyed’ (category 4)

5.35
11-point scale: A score of 8, 9 or 10
A 2013 ANASE update study by Flindel et al32 also used a cut-off of 72
and applied it as defined above to a 5-point scale.
5.36
Using these criteria, Table 19 presents the distribution of response to the
CAN1i question and the corresponding percentage of respondents highly
30
31
32
Schultz T J. (1978) ‘Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance’, Journal of Acoustical
Society of America, 64, p. 377-405.
Miedema H M E & Vos H. (1998) ‘Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise’,
Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 104 (6), p. 3432-3445.
Flindell et al (2013). “Understanding UK Community Annoyance with Aircraft Noise”, ANASE
update, Report for 2M Group, September 2013.
February 2017
Page 44
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
annoyed. Table 20 presents corresponding results using the CAN34 11point scale question. As was the case for mean annoyance scores, the
percentage of respondents highly annoyed is very consistent for both
questions. Overall, 12% of responses to the CAN1i question (the 5 point
scale) indicated high annoyance, whilst 11% of responses to the CAN34
question (the 11 point scale) indicated high annoyance.
Table 19: Distribution of annoyance responses to CAN1i question as function of L Aeq,16h
Average summer
day LAeq,16h (dB)
Highly annoyed
Not at all
Slightly
Extremely
% highly
annoyed
Moderately
Very
48.0 – 50.9
50.0%
22.5%
16.3%
8.8%
2.5%
6.0%
51.0 – 53.9
49.1%
25.2%
14.6%
8.1%
3.0%
6.2%
54.0 – 56.9
28.4%
29.6%
18.5%
12.6%
10.9%
15.9%
57.0 – 59.9
18.8%
31.2%
21.5%
15.4%
13.1%
19.3%
60.0 – 62.9
19.4%
19.4%
38.0%
11.6%
11.6%
16.2%
≥ 63
16.9%
25.4%
19.7%
23.9%
14.1%
23.7%
Total
35.8%
26.7%
18.5%
11.3%
7.6%
12.1%
Table 20: Distribution of annoyance responses to CAN34 question as function of L Aeq,16h (%)
Average summer
day LAeq,16h (dB)
0
(%)
1
(%)
2
(%)
3
(%)
48.0 – 50.9
28.2
33.3
10.3
12.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
51.0 – 53.9
23.9
23.9
15.0
8.9
5.3
6.7
54.0 – 56.9
13.3
10.9
12.5
13.3
7.0
57.0 – 59.9
12.6
10.3
13.4
11.5
60.0 – 62.9
11.6
3.9
12.4
≥ 63
9.7
4.2
Total
18.1
16.6
5.37
4
(%)
5
(%)
6
(%)
7
(%)
Highly annoyed (%)
10
% highly
annoyed
8
9
2.6
6.4
0.0
2.6
9.0
5.7
5.9
1.9
1.3
1.5
4.7
9.4
8.8
10.9
5.5
3.3
5.3
14.1
6.9
8.4
5.0
12.6
7.6
5.7
6.1
19.4
10.9
7.0
14.0
10.1
12.4
7.0
4.7
6.2
17.9
6.9
8.3
5.6
13.9
15.3
16.7
6.9
5.6
6.9
19.4
13.4
10.8
6.0
8.2
6.9
9.0
4.4
2.8
3.8
11.0
The percentage of respondents calculated as highly annoyed is also
plotted in Figure 6.
February 2017
Page 45
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Figure 6: Percentage of respondents calculated as highly annoyed
30%
% Highly Annoyed
25%
20%
15%
5-point ISO scale
11-point ISO scale
10%
5%
0%
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
Average summer day, LAeq,16h (dB)
5.38
There is a sharp increase in responses between 51-54 and 54-57 dB
LAeq,16h, as was also reflected in the earlier mean annoyance scores.
Above 54-57 dB, the percentage highly annoyed broadly increases with
increasing exposure level.
5.39
Tables 21-23 show similar data as a function of average summer day
N70, average annual day 24hr Lden and average summer day N65
respectively.
Table 21: Percentage of respondents indicating high annoyance for all airport locations except Luton by
average summer day 16h N70 (total n=1,822)
Average summer day number
of events of ≥70 dB LAmax
Weighted responses
in noise band
CAN1i % highly
annoyed
CAN34 % highly
annoyed
0
506
7.4%
5.9%
1 – 24
428
7.6%
7.4%
25 – 49
203
11.3%
8.5%
50 – 99
322
17.8%
16.5%
100 – 199
193
20.5%
19.7%
200 – 399
158
20.4%
17.6%
≥ 400
11
20.4%
20.0%
Total
1,822
12.2%
11.0%
February 2017
Page 46
CAP 1506
5.40
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Results for N70 (Table 21) show a similar sharp increase in the
percentage of respondents highly annoyed between 25-49 and 50-99
events.
Table 22: Percentage of respondents for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted indicating high annoyance by
average summer day Lden 24h (total n=1,462)
Average summer day Lden 24h
(dB)
5.41
Weighted responses
in noise band
CAN1i % highly
annoyed
CAN34 % highly
annoyed
50.0 – 52.9
199
5.8%
5.0%
53.0 – 55.9
600
6.4%
4.3%
56.0 – 58.9
343
16.3%
15.2%
59.0 – 61.9
169
21.3%
20.7%
62.0 – 64.9
90
19.1%
17.8%
≥ 65
62
19.0%
17.7%
Total
1,462
11.7%
10.2%
Results using the 24 hour Lden noise indicator (Table 22) follow a similar
trend to LAeq,16h, with a sharp rise between 53-55.9 and 56-58.9 dB Lden.
Table 23: Percentage of respondents indicating high annoyance for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted by
average summer day 16h N65 (total n=1,465)
Average summer day number
of events of ≥65 dB LAmax
5.42
Weighted responses
in noise band
CAN1i % highly
annoyed
CAN34 % highly
annoyed
1 – 24
401
4.9%
4.6%
25 – 49
173
7.9%
4.7%
50 – 99
256
9.7%
7.5%
100 – 199
272
16.8%
16.2%
200 – 399
299
18.3%
16.0%
≥ 400
64
18.7%
21.9%
Total
1,465
11.6%
10.4%
Results for N65 (Table 23) show an increase in the percentage of
respondents highly annoyed between 50-99 and 100-199 events.
Comparison with ANASE and ANIS
5.43
Table 24 compares the overall approaches taken by SoNA, ANASE and
ANIS studies. The SoNA and ANASE studies used the same ISO 5-point
verbal scale annoyance question, used the same transformation to
annoyance score and used the same cut-off to define high annoyance.
February 2017
Page 47
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Table 24: Comparison of SoNA, ANASE and ANIS studies
Parameter
SoNA
ANASE
ANIS
Survey year
2014
Phase 1: 2003
Phase 2: 2005
1982
Site selection
Sites randomly selected,
stratified by noise
exposure level
Sites randomly selected,
stratified by sound level
and number of aircraft
Sites pre-selected
based on sound level
and number of aircraft
Coverage
Semi-clustered approach
with noise exposure
estimated for each
respondent’s location
around 8 airports
56 sites around 16
airports
23 sites around 5
airports
Number of
interviews
1,999
2,132
2,097
LAeq,16h range:
40 to 64 dB
Noise exposure
level range
LAeq,16h range:
51 to 72 dB
Annoyance
question
Main annoyance
questions used five point
and 11-point ISO scales
Main annoyance
question used five point
ISO scale
Main annoyance
question used four
point scale plus “not
heard”
Annoyance scale
transformation
Transformed to 0 to 100
scale using equally
spaced categories
Transformed to 0 to 100
scale using equally
spaced categories
No transformation
used
High annoyance
cut-off
72%
72%
Not defined but
roughly equivalent to
75%
5.44
At least one event of
65dB LAmax or more
every four hours
Leq range:
51 to 72 dB
Mean annoyance scores calculated from the SoNA 2014 survey are
plotted in Figure 7, alongside results from the full ANASE study and
ANASE restricted sites (see paragraph 2.12), and those derived for ANIS
by the ANASE researchers. SoNA 2014 is seen to produce similar mean
annoyance scores as for ANIS, whilst ANASE calculated somewhat
higher values. This is not to say that the SoNA 2014 findings are the same
as or similar to ANIS33.
33
ANIS predates the concept of mean annoyance scores and thus these have been calculated
retrospectively. Because the final output of ANIS that informed policy was the percentage
highly annoyed it is premature to conclude that SoNA 2014 and ANIS are same based solely
on mean annoyance score.
February 2017
Page 48
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Figure 7: Comparison of mean annoyance scores for SoNA, ANASE and ANIS
90
Mean annoyance score
80
70
A9a (5-point ISO)
60
CAN1i (5-point ISO)
50
CAN34 (11-point ISO)
40
ANASE
30
20
ANASE restricted sites &
CAA noise data
10
ANIS
0
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
Average summer day LAeq,16h (dB)
5.45
Figure 8 completes the comparison by comparing the percentage of
respondents calculated as highly annoyed from the three surveys, with the
ANASE results based on the update from 2013 as the original report did
not calculate a percentage highly annoyed. It is apparent that for values
below 60dB LAeq,16h, the SoNA 2014 results lie between ANASE and
ANIS. At levels above 63 dB LAeq,16h the SoNA 2014 estimates lie below
ANIS. This may be due to small sample sizes at higher exposure levels
for SoNA 2014 not being representative – early charts showed mean
responses with relatively large uncertainties due to small sample sizes.
5.46
34
35
The SoNA 2014 results are somewhat similar to the Miedema curve34,35.
ANIS predates the concept of mean annoyance scores and thus these have been calculated
retrospectively. Because the final output of ANIS that informed policy was the percentage
highly annoyed it is premature to conclude that SoNA 2014 and ANIS are same based solely
on mean annoyance score.
The Miedema dose-response function is based on the 24h Lden indicator. Although Miedema
recommends converting Lden to LAeq,16h using an adjustment of Lden = LAeq,16h + 2dB, the study
found the difference was 1.5dB for SoNA respondents (see Appendix B) and this value was
used in constructing Figure 8.
February 2017
Page 49
CAP 1506
Chapter 5: Noise exposure and annoyance
Figure 8: Comparison of % highly annoyed for SoNA, ANASE, ANIS and Miedema
60
% Highly Annoyed
50
40
SoNA
30
ANASE
ANIS
20
EU (Miedema)
10
0
45
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
69
Average summer day noise exposure, LAeq,16h (dB)
5.47
The results in Figure 8 have been used to update Table 3 of CAP 725
Appendix B, as shown in Table 25.
Table 25: Percentage highly annoyed as a function average summer day noise exposure, L Aeq,16h
% highly annoyed
Average summer day noise exposure, LAeq,16h (dB)
5.48
ANIS 1982
SoNA 2014
51
3%
7%
54
5%
9%
57
9%
13%
60
14%
17%
63
23%
23%
66
34%
31%
69
48%
39%
The same percentage of respondents said by ANIS to be highly annoyed
at 57 dB LAeq,16h now occurs at 54 dB. Comparing with the results in Table
25, the ‘Miedema’ dose response function36, predicts 12% highly annoyed
at 54 dB and 16% at 57 dB.
36
Miedema & Oudshoorn (2001). Miedema H M E & Oudshoorn C G M, “Annoyance from
Transportation Noise: Relationships with Exposure Metrics DNL and DENL and Their
Confidence Intervals”, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 109, Number 4, April 2001.
February 2017
Page 50
CAP 1506
Chapter 6: Health and wellbeing
Chapter 6
Health and wellbeing
6.1
An objective of the SoNA 2014 survey was also to obtain evidence on the
effects of noise on well-being and health. The scope of the well-being and
health questions was, however, constrained by the need to limit the length
of the questionnaire.
6.2
The questionnaire asked respondents a question about their general
health at the time of interview and specific questions using a previously
validated well-being scale. Question HL1 asked people to rate their health
on a 5 point scale. Table 26 shows the association between self-reported
health rating and annoyance score. Over half the respondents stated that
their health rating was “very good” or “excellent”.
Table 26: Crosstabulation results for self-reported health rating and annoyance scores
Overall annoyance score (5-point scale)
Selfreported
health
rating
6.3
N
10
30
50
70
90
Total
Excellent
374
7%
6%
4%
2%
2%
20%
Very good
663
12%
11%
7%
4%
2%
36%
Good
567
12%
7%
6%
4%
2%
31%
Fair
166
4%
2%
1%
2%
1%
9%
Poor
71
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
4%
Total
1841
36%
27%
19%
11%
8%
100%
A Chi-Square Test of Independence was performed to examine the
relationship between self-reported health rating and annoyance score.
The relationship between these variables was found to be significant
(X2(16)>= 38.793 p=0.001). This test suggests that there is a relationship
between self-reported health rating and annoyance score.
6.4
Table 27 presents self-reported health rating and noise exposure.
February 2017
Page 51
CAP 1506
Chapter 6: Health and wellbeing
Table 27: Crosstabulation results for self-reported health rating and average summer day L Aeq,16h
Average summer day LAeq,16h (dB)
N
Selfreported
health
rating
6.5
48 – 51
51 – 54
54 – 57
57 – 60
60 – 63
> 63
Total
Excellent
373
1%
9%
5%
3%
2%
1%
20%
Very good
663
1%
16%
10%
5%
3%
1%
36%
Good
567
1%
13%
9%
5%
2%
1%
31%
Fair
166
1%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
9%
Poor
71
0%
1%
2%
1%
0%
0%
4%
Total
1,840
4%
43%
28%
14%
7%
4%
100%
A Chi-Square Test of Independence was performed to examine the
relationship between self-reported health rating and aircraft noise
exposure. The relationship between these variables was not significant
(X2(20)>=27.776, p=0.115). This test suggests that there is no relationship
between self-reported health rating and aircraft noise exposure level.
6.6
Question HL4 asked respondents to complete the Short WarwickEdinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (SWEMWBS)37, which is comprised
of seven questions:
A
B
C
D
E
F
All of
the
time
Often
Some
of the
time
Rarely
None
of the
time
Don’t
know /
refused
I’ve been feeling optimistic about the
future






I’ve been feeling useful






I’ve been feeling relaxed






I’ve been dealing with problems well






I’ve been thinking clearly






I’ve been feeling close to other people






I’ve been able to make up my own mind
about things






[Shown on screen in random order]
Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS)
© NHS Health Scotland, University of Warwick and University of Edinburgh, 2006, all rights reserved
37
Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) © NHS Health Scotland,
University of Warwick and University of Edinburgh, 2006, all rights reserved.
February 2017
Page 52
CAP 1506
6.7
Chapter 6: Health and wellbeing
Table 28 shows a crosstabulation table of the calculated SWEMWBS and
annoyance scores (5-point scale). A Chi-Square Test of Independence
was performed to examine the relationship between self-reported mental
well-being and annoyance score. The relationship between these
variables was found to be significant (X2(24)>=50.239, p=0.001). This test
suggests that there is a relationship between self-reported well-being
score and annoyance, mirroring the finding for self-reported health rating.
Table 28: Crosstabulation results for the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Score (SWEMWBS)
and annoyance score (5-point ISO scale)
Overall annoyance score (5-point score)
SWEMWBS
N
10
30
50
70
90
Total
< 21
90
1.4%
1.5%
0.9%
0.4%
0.8%
5.0%
21 – 22
199
2.4%
1.6%
2.1%
1.2%
0.5%
7.7%
23 – 24
289
3.2%
3.0%
2.0%
1.8%
1.1%
11.1%
25 – 26
429
5.7%
4.3%
2.3%
2.0%
1.8%
16.1%
27 – 28
266
8.6%
6.3%
5.0%
2.3%
1.7%
23.9%
29 – 30
138
5.5%
4.2%
2.8%
1.3%
0.9%
14.8%
> 30
386
9.0%
5.8%
3.6%
2.1%
1.1%
21.5%
Total
1,797
35.8%
26.7%
18.6%
11.1%
7.8%
100.0%
6.8
Table 29 shows a crosstabulation table of the calculated SWEMWBS and
average summer day LAeq,16h. A Chi-Square Test of Independence was
performed to examine the relationship between self-reported mental wellbeing and aircraft noise. The relationship between these variables was not
significant (X2(30)>=35.281, p=0.233). This test suggests that there is no
relationship between self-reported well-being score and aircraft noise
exposure level mirroring the finding for self-reported health rating.
February 2017
Page 53
CAP 1506
Chapter 6: Health and wellbeing
Table 29: Crosstabulation results for the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Score (SWEMWBS)
and average summer day LAeq,16h
Average summer day LAeq,16h
SWEMWBS
N
48 – 51
51 – 54
54 – 57
57 – 16
60 – 63
> 63
Total
< 21
91
0.2%
2.1%
1.6%
0.6%
0.3%
0.3%
5.1%
21 – 22
138
0.7%
3.4%
1.4%
1.2%
0.6%
0.4%
7.7%
23 – 24
199
0.6%
4.8%
2.6%
2.0%
0.7%
0.4%
11.1%
25 – 26
289
0.5%
7.2%
5.0%
2.1%
0.8%
0.5%
16.1%
27 – 28
429
0.9%
9.0%
7.8%
3.2%
2.0%
0.9%
23.9%
29 – 30
263
0.8%
6.3%
3.8%
2.2%
0.9%
0.6%
14.7%
> 30
386
0.6%
9.8%
5.6%
3.0%
1.8%
0.7%
21.5%
Total
1,795
4.2%
42.6%
27.9%
14.3%
7.2%
3.8%
100%
February 2017
Page 54
CAP 1506
Chapter 7: Non-acoustic factors
Chapter 7
Non-acoustic factors
Introduction
7.1
This chapter addresses the following study objective:

Obtain new and updated evidence on what influences attitudes to
aviation noise, and how attitudes vary, particularly how attitudes vary
with LAeq, but also other non-acoustic factors that may influence
attitudes, such as location and time of day, and socio economic
group of respondents.
7.2
Whilst the preceding chapter examined how annoyance varied with noise
exposure level for a variety of different noise indicators, including LAeq, it
did not consider other, non-acoustic factors. Past UK and international
surveys have shown38,39 that whilst there is a high correlation between
noise exposure and mean annoyance or percentage highly annoyed,
there is considerable variation in annoyance responses that is not
associated with noise exposure.
7.3
The identification of and the relative contribution of non-acoustic factors
may yield additional factors for consideration in noise management and in
setting policy. Secondly, consideration of non-acoustic factors are
important since they can obscure or confound the relationship between
annoyance and noise exposure. By separating out and including the
effects of other variables in our model for estimating the likelihood of
annoyance it may be possible to reduce uncertainty and increase
confidence in the relationship between noise exposure and annoyance.
38
39
Brooker et al 1985. Brooker P, Critchley J B, Monkman D J & Richmond C. DR Report 8402:
United Kingdom Aircraft Noise Study: Main Report, January 1985.
Schultz T J. (1978) ‘Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance’, Journal of Acoustical
Society of America, 64, p. 377-405.
February 2017
Page 55
CAP 1506
Chapter 7: Non-acoustic factors
Multivariate analysis
7.4
The analysis builds on that presented in Chapter 5 and that used for
SoNA 2013, by introducing additional variables and estimating their
association with annoyance. Because many of the non-acoustic factors
are categorical, the statistical analysis lends itself to a logistic regression
approach, which also requires the use of a categorical dependent
variable. Thus, this analysis is based on being ‘highly annoyed’ (or not) as
computed from question CAN34. CAN34 is used since the transformation
of annoyance score to highly annoyed can be applied to each survey
respondent and related to non-acoustic factors specific to that respondent.
7.5
The output from a logistic regression analysis is an odds-ratio. In
statistics, the odds ratio is one of three main ways to quantify how strongly
the presence or absence of property ‘A’ (highly annoyed or not) is
associated with the presence or absence of property ‘B’ (the non-acoustic
factor) in a given population. If the odds-ratio is greater than 1 then having
property ‘A’ is considered to be associated with having property ‘B’ in the
sense that the having ‘B’ raises the odds of having ‘A’. Odds ratios and
their associated significance level show only association and do not
indicate causality, i.e. whether or not A causes B or B causes A.
7.6
Table 30 presents the results of a multivariate logistic regression analysis
which considered the following non-acoustic factors in addition to average
summer noise exposure, LAeq,16h.

Length of residence

Self-reported noise sensitivity rating

Expectation of possibility of hearing noise from the airport prior to
moving to their current home

Expectations on experiencing more or less noise next summer

Age

Socio-economic status

Presence of double-glazing

2011 Census Urban-Rural Classification
February 2017
Page 56
CAP 1506
7.7
Chapter 7: Non-acoustic factors
Each non-acoustic factor was considered in turn alongside noise
exposure. This was done to ensure data samples were sufficiently large
for analysis. In some cases multiple factors were considered together to
check for any confounding effects on each other and this is discussed in a
later section. For each non-acoustic factor, a reference condition (REF)
was selected against which odds-ratios for the other values the nonacoustic factor can take are reported. For example for gender, female was
selected as the reference condition and the odds-ratio reported is the
odds of a man being highly-annoyed relative to a woman.
Table 30: Relationship of high annoyance to non-acoustic factors
N
Odds ratio
1,847
1.121***
Noise exposure
Average summer day LAeq,16h
Length of
residence
Less than 6 months
35
REF
6 months – 1 year
139
0.364
1 – 2 years
218
0.422*
2 – 5 years
319
0.421**
5 – 10 years
320
0.836
10 years or more
841
0.934
1 – Least sensitive
266
REF
2
331
0.916
3
304
1.495
4
417
2.893***
5
249
3.209***
6
142
7.592***
7 – Most sensitive
164
9.639***
No, I was not aware of the possibility of hearing noise
575
2.826**
Yes, but the noise was more than I expected
234
6.114***
Yes, and the noise is roughly what I expected
682
0.705
Yes, but the noise was less than I expected
116
0.301
Yes, but the noise has got worse since I moved here
111
13.716***
18 – 19 years
28
REF
20 – 24 years
81
0.714
25 – 34 years
342
0.876
35 – 44 years
394
0.986
45 – 54 years
343
1.409
Noise sensitivity
Expectation of
possibility of
hearing noise
from the airport
prior to moving
here
Age
February 2017
Page 57
CAP 1506
Chapter 7: Non-acoustic factors
55 – 64 years
271
2.708*
65 – 74 years
241
2.611*
75 years or older
168
1.646
Male
900
0.910
Female
977
REF
A
80
REF
B
375
0.432**
C1
648
0.444***
C2
323
0.215***
D
234
0.189***
E
197
0.320***
Yes
1341
REF
No
165
1.848**
2011 census
rural-urban
classification
Urban
1646
REF
Rural
231
2.007**
Expectation of
noise next
summer
1 – Expect it to be less
13
0.004
2
16
0.055**
3
45
0.205***
4
774
0.097***
5
180
0.136***
6
124
0.421**
7 – Expect it to be more
151
REF
No
369
REF
Yes
776
1.895***
Gender
Approximated
social grade
Double-glazing
Working from
home
* p < 0.05
** p < 0.01
*** p < 0.001
7.8
Employment at an airport or for an airline was considered separately and
not found to have a statistically significant influence on annoyance. This
may be because employment at an airport or with an airline represented a
small proportion of the study respondents (2.6%).
7.9
Length of residence was found to be statistically significant for two
categories 1-2 years (p < 0.05) and 2-5 years (p 0.01), but not for other
categories (p = 0.164-0.740).
February 2017
Page 58
CAP 1506
7.10
Chapter 7: Non-acoustic factors
Being more noise sensitive was found to significantly increase the
likelihood of high annoyance and was significant for all but the lowest two
of the seven sensitivity categories (category 2 p = 0.837 and category 3 p
= 0.314). For respondents in the most noise sensitive category, 7, OR =
9.6 compared with reference category (p < 0.001).
7.11
On the expectation of the possibility of hearing aircraft noise, prior to
moving, the reference condition was defined as those respondents that
had always lived there. For those that said they did not expect to hear
aircraft noise OR = 2.9 (p < 0.05). Those that had moved and said they
expected to hear noise, but that it was more than expected OR = 6.1 (p <
0.001) than residents that had always lived there. Results for the two
groups that said noise was roughly what they expected or less than they
expected after moving were not statistically significant (p = 0.416 and p =
0.156 respectively). Results for the group that thought the noise had got
worse since moving there, OR = 13.7, compared to the reference group.
Overall, these findings indicated that expectation after moving was the
strongest non-acoustic factor (largest statistically significant OR) affecting
the likelihood of high annoyance.
7.12
On expectations of experiencing more or less noise next summer, the
reference condition was taken as those likely to expect more noise next
summer (this had a larger sample than those expecting less noise which
aided analysis). Compared to those that thought noise next summer
would be roughly the same (answer 4), to those expecting more noise
(answer 7), OR = 10.3 (p < 0.001).
7.13
Although some variation was found between different age groups, the
results were not found to be statistically significant for any age group (p =
0.013-0.974). Gender was also not found to be statistically significant (p =
0.530).
7.14
Approximated social grade was found to be statistically significant for all
five categories (p < 0.01). Respondents in grade A were found to be more
likely to be highly annoyed than any other social grade. The odds of being
February 2017
Page 59
CAP 1506
Chapter 7: Non-acoustic factors
highly annoyed was found to decrease through grades A to E. For grades
C2, D and E, OR = 0.189 to 0.444.
7.15
Regarding double-glazing, it was found that for respondents from homes
without double glazing OR = 1.85 (p < 0.01). As is discussed later, this
finding did not remain when approximated social grade was added to the
model in addition to double-glazing (see Confounding Factors).
7.16
Each respondent’s dwelling was categorised according to the 2011
Census Rural-Urban Classification into five categories: three rural and two
urban classifications. Results for none of the categories were statistically
significant (p=0.056-0.875). The majority of respondents lived in urban
locations. The 2011 Census Rural-Urban Classifications were re-grouped
in order to reduce the number of classifications from five to two (all rural
and all urban) which increased sample size. From this it was found that for
respondents from locations classified as rural OR = 2.0 (p < 0.05).
However, as with double-glazing, this finding did not remain once
approximated-social grade was added to the model.
Confounding factors
7.17
Any factors identified as significantly correlated with high annoyance were
then assessed together. Some were no longer found to have statistically
significant associations with high annoyance. In particular when
approximated social grade, presence of double-glazing and urban-rural
classification were included together, only approximated social grade
remained statistically significant, with double-glazing (p = 0.957) and
urban-rural classification (p = 0.276) being not significant. This does not
indicate there is not an association for urban/rural classification or doubleglazing, but that one could not be identified from the survey most likely
due to small sample sizes, especially in these sub-categories.
7.18
Having included additional contributory factors from Table 19, noise
exposure continued to have a statistically significant association with
February 2017
Page 60
CAP 1506
Chapter 7: Non-acoustic factors
annoyance, its association with high annoyance strengthening to an odds
ratio of 1.2 compared with 1.13 previously.
7.19
The inclusion of additional non-acoustic variables in the model, in
particular noise sensitivity, expectations prior to moving and expectations
next summer significantly improved the multivariate model predictive
power, whilst reducing variance and uncertainty.
Dose response relationship
7.20
The logistic regression results may also be used as a statistical estimator
of high annoyance. A model was developed using combinations of the two
key non-acoustic factors: one with noise exposure alone (as presented in
Chapter 5), noise exposure and noise sensitivity and, noise exposure,
sensitivity and expectations next summer.
7.21
Figure 9 shows the dose response relationship, i.e. the proportion of
respondents likely to be highly annoyed as a function of noise exposure
along with four sensitivities around the baseline model based solely on
noise exposure:

Least sensitive respondents

Most sensitive respondents

Most sensitive respondents expecting less noise next summer

Most sensitive respondents expecting more noise summer
Figure 9: Variation in dose response relationships for different logistic regression models
Percentage highly annoyed
90%
80%
Noise only
70%
60%
Noise + least sensitive
50%
40%
Noise + most sensitive
30%
Noise + most sensitive + expect
less noise next summer
20%
10%
0%
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
69
Noise + most sensitive + expect
more noise next summer
Average summer day noise exposure, LAeq,16h (dB)
February 2017
Page 61
CAP 1506
Chapter 8: Summary
Chapter 8
Summary
Survey and analysis methodology
8.1
Respondents were selected using a random, partially-clustered approach
from around nine airports in England, having been exposed to average
LAeq,16h noise levels of at least 51dB in the summer of 2013.
8.2
1,999 participants completed a face-to-face survey on attitudes to civil
aircraft noise. 122 were not resident during summer 2014, leaving a
sample of 1,877 valid responses.
8.3
The survey used the ISO recommended 5-point verbal scale and 11 point
numerical scale of reported annoyance from aircraft noise.
8.4
Data transformation to annoyance scores and the threshold for being
defined as highly annoyed followed international best practice and the
method used in recent UK and overseas studies. Annoyance scores
calculated from the 5-point and 11-point scale questions were found to be
consistent.
Study aims
8.5
The study aims as originally set out were:

Obtain new and updated evidence on attitudes to aviation noise
around airports in England, including the effects of aviation noise on
annoyance, wellbeing and health.

Obtain new and updated evidence on what influences attitudes to
aviation noise, and how attitudes vary, particularly how attitudes vary
with LAeq, but also other non-acoustic factors that may influence
attitudes, such as location and time of day, and socio economic
group of respondents
February 2017
Page 62
CAP 1506
Chapter 8: Summary

Examine whether the currently used measure of annoyance, LAeq, is
the appropriate measure of annoyance for measuring the impact on
people living around major airports.

Consider the appropriateness of the policy threshold for significant
community annoyance from aviation noise.

Provide baseline results that can be used for a programme of regular
surveys of attitudes to aviation noise.
8.6
It is helpful to recast these into a series of sequential questions, which
have been used to frame the following sections.
Is LAeq,16h still the most appropriate indicator to use to estimate the
annoyance arising from aircraft noise?
8.7
The study compared reported mean annoyance scores against average
summer-day noise exposure defined using four different noise indicators:
LAeq,16h, Lden, N70 and N65.
8.8
Evidence was found that mean annoyance score correlated well with
average summer day noise exposure, LAeq,16h (r2=0.87)40. There was no
evidence found to suggest that any of the other indicators Lden, N70 or
N65 (r2=0.60-0.71) correlated better with annoyance than LAeq,16h.
8.9
Having said this, the study recognises that residents can struggle to
understand the concept of a time-averaged metric such as LAeq,16h and
Lden and the fact that it is measured and reported on a logarithmic scale
where a change of 3 dB representatives a doubling or halving of noise
energy.
8.10
There is, therefore merit in considering greater use of Nx metrics as
supplemental indicators to help portray noise exposure, but recognising
that evidence-based decisions should continue to use LAeq,16h. In this
context N65 is preferred over N70 as noise events in many areas are
40
In statistics, the coefficient of determination, denoted r 2, is a number that indicates the
proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that is predictable from the independent
variable. r2 varies between 0 and 1, with a higher number indicating that a greater proportion of
the variance in the dependent variable is predicted from the independent variable.
February 2017
Page 63
CAP 1506
Chapter 8: Summary
already beginning to occur at levels less than 70 dB LAmax and are
forecast to reduce over time.
Is summer day, average mode, still the best time period to use as
opposed to single-mode?
8.11
Whilst evidence was found indicating that easterly-mode noise exposure
correlated best with mean annoyance score (r2=0.95), westerly-mode
noise exposure was found to have the poorest correlation (r2=0.21). This
occurs because respondents were found to be more annoyed by easterlymode noise exposure compared to westerly-mode for a given noise level.
Practically, this means that single-mode contours are unsuitable for
decision making, but that they may be helpful for portraying exposure and
changes to exposure.
8.12
Of the average-day modes, the existing 92 day summer average mode
was found to correlate better (r2=0.88) than shorter average modes
(r2=0.69-83). There was therefore no evidence found to support a change
from the current practice of basing LAeq,16h on an average summer day.
How does annoyance relate to exposure?
8.13
Mean annoyance score and the likelihood of being highly annoyed were
found to increase with increasing noise exposure (LAeq,16h). The
relationship found was close to linear, though annoyance levels plateau at
low exposure and do not reach zero annoyance.
How do the results compare with ANIS, ANASE & Miedema?
8.14
Annoyance scores were found to be comparable with those found for the
ANASE restricted sites, but lower than found by the full ANASE study, and
higher than found by ANIS.
8.15
For a given noise exposure, a lower proportion of respondents was found
to be highly annoyed than compared with ANASE, the results of which
were considered unreliable.
February 2017
Page 64
CAP 1506
8.16
Chapter 8: Summary
For a given noise exposure, a higher proportion of respondents was found
to be highly annoyed than compared with ANIS. This is highlighted in
Table 31, which presents tabular data from Figure 8 (Chapter 5), as an
update to Table 3 of CAP 725 Appendix B.
Table 31: Percentage highly annoyed as a function average summer day noise exposure, L Aeq,16h
% highly annoyed
Average summer day noise exposure, LAeq,16h (dB)
8.17
ANIS 1982
SoNA 2014
51
3%
7%
54
5%
9%
57
9%
13%
60
14%
17%
63
23%
23%
66
34%
31%
69
48%
39%
The same percentage of respondents said by ANIS to be highly annoyed
at 57 dB LAeq,16h now occurs at 54 dB. Comparing with the results in
Table 31, the ‘Miedema’ dose response function41, predicts 12% highly
annoyed at 54 dB and 16% at 57 dB.
How do measures of health and well-being relate to exposure?
8.18
Noise exposure and reported annoyance were compared against selfreported health rating (5 point scale) and the Short Warwick-Edinburgh
Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS), a measure of well-being. Poorer
health ratings and lower SWEMWBS scores were found to be associated
annoyance, but not with noise exposure.
What non-acoustical factors seem to influence annoyance?
8.19
Evidence was found that non-acoustic factors such as noise sensitivity,
approximated social grade, and expectations – both prior to moving to an
area exposed to aircraft noise and in the future – influence reported
41
Miedema & Oudshoorn (2001). Miedema H M E & Oudshoorn C G M, “Annoyance from
Transportation Noise: Relationships with Exposure Metrics DNL and DENL and Their
Confidence Intervals”, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 109, Number 4, April 2001.
February 2017
Page 65
CAP 1506
Chapter 8: Summary
aircraft noise annoyance and these non-acoustic factors may be as
important as the noise exposure level.
8.20
From the survey as a whole, 9% of respondents were estimated to be
highly annoyed at an exposure level of 54 dB LAeq,16h. For the most
sensitive individual the likelihood of being highly annoyed rises to 25%,
the same as would occur at 64dB and for the least sensitive it reduces to
3%. For the most sensitive and those expecting more noise next summer,
at 54 dB, 49% are estimated to be highly annoyed, whereas for the most
sensitive expecting less noise next summer the likelihood falls back to
9%.
8.21
An indication was found that urban/rural classification may be a nonacoustic factor, however, this was confounded by approximated social
grade and the presence of double-glazing.
Recommendations for future surveys
8.22
The survey format has been designed for more frequent use. Noting the
importance of non-acoustic factors identified that may be subject to
greater variation over time, it is recommended that future surveys be
undertaken more frequently.
February 2017
Page 66
CAP 1506
Glossary of terms
Appendix A
Glossary of terms
ANASE
Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources in England (2002 survey
reported 2007)
ANIS
Aircraft Noise Index Study (1982 survey reported in 1985)
APF
Aviation Policy Framework
dB
Decibel
dBA
Decibel A-weighted scale
LAeq,16h
Equivalent continuous sound level, 0700-2300
LAmax
Maximum single event noise level (time weighted slow)
Lden
Annual average 24h day, evening, night level
N
Sample size
N65
N70
Number of events of 65 dB LAmax or more during an average summer
day (0700-2300)
Number of events of 70 dB LAmax or more during an average summer
day (0700-2300)
NNAS
National Noise Attitude Survey
OR
Odds ratio
REF
Reference state for the independent variable used in logistic regression
SID
Standard Instrument Departure Route
SoNA
Survey of Noise Attitudes
SWEMWBS
Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Score
February 2017
Page 67
CAP 1506
Noise indices
Appendix B
Noise indices
Introduction
Noise indices must be reliable; thus they must not only correlate adequately with
impact, but also be relatively simple to understand, readily definable by
measurement or prediction, robust (which means that they are insensitive to
unavoidable or unpredictable uncertainties), and realistic by accounting for factors
that common sense tells people are important. As a rule, the major impact around
airports is from air noise42 which, for the most part, is a clearly identifiable part of the
total noise climate. Thus, aircraft noise indices are expected to be sensitive to factors
such as the numbers of aircraft heard and their noise levels, differences between
day and night activity.
Single event LAmax
As an aircraft flies towards a location on the ground, the instantaneous noise level
will rise to a maximum value. The maximum noise level, Lmax, will often, but not
always be associated with the closest point between the aircraft path and a given
location on the ground. As the aircraft then moves further away, the instantaneous
noise level will then decrease as shown in Figure 10.
42
By convention, the noise generated by aircraft during landing and take-off, including the noise
generated whilst accelerating to take off and decelerating after landing. Noise generated during
taxi from and to the runway and whilst parked is considered ground noise.
February 2017
Page 68
CAP 1506
Noise indices
Figure 10: Noise event time history showing maximum noise level at a given location as an aircraft flies
past
Equivalent Continuous Sound Level, LAeq
Currently the most commonly used long-term indicator is the Equivalent Continuous
Sound Level, LAeq. This is the hypothetical steady state sound level that, over a given
period of time, contains the same sound energy as the fluctuating sound over the
same time period.
LAeq,16h was adopted in 1990 on the basis of the 1982 Aircraft Noise Index Study,
ANIS43. The reference time period is an average summer day, from June 16 th to
September 15th inclusive and from 7am to 11pm. The summer day period dates back
to the recommendations in the 1963 Wilson Committee report on aircraft noise,
which recommended measuring noise exposure during the summer months because
people were more likely to have windows open, be outdoors, and aviation activity is
at its most intense. In addition to these reasons, warmer summer temperatures
adversely affect aircraft performance and lead to increased noise exposure
compared to other times of the year. The time period of 7am to 11pm, recognises
that daytime and night-time noise exposure can lead to quite different reactions in
43
Brooker et al 1985. Brooker P, Critchley J B, Monkman D J & Richmond C. DR Report 8402:
United Kingdom Aircraft Noise Study: Main Report, January 1985.
February 2017
Page 69
CAP 1506
Noise indices
people (principally daytime annoyance and night-time sleep disturbance) and thus it
is better to define day and night noise exposure separately.
At the time LAeq,16h was adopted in 1990, the UK government defined three threshold
levels for policy consideration: 57, 63 and 69dB LAeq,16h representing, low, moderate
and high annoyance. In the 2003 Air Transport White Paper, 57dB LAeq,16h was
defined as marking the approximate onset of significant community annoyance, and
this was re-affirmed in the Government’s 2013 Aviation Policy Framework 44.
Lden and the EU Environmental Noise Directive
In 2002 the European Commission published Directive 2002/49/EC, establishing a
common environmental noise indicator for the European Union. The day, evening,
night level, Lden is a 24h LAeq indicator, determined as an annual average. It
separates the 24h into three periods, a 12 hour day from 7am to 7pm, a 4 hour
evening period from 7pm to 11pm and an 8 hour night period from 11pm to 7am 45.
Weightings are applied to the evening and night periods such that one evening flight
counts as 3.16 day flights and one night period flight counts as 10 day flights. These
weightings are specifically to reflect the likely increased sensitivity to a given noise
exposure during the evening and night periods. As a result, there is no precise
relationship between LAeq,16h and Lden, it depends on the amount of noise in each
period. For larger UK airports with some night flights Lden is numerically around
1.5dB higher than the corresponding LAeq,16h.
N70 and N65
The N70 metric was devised to represent ‘Number Above’ contours, combining
information on single event noise levels with aircraft movement numbers that are
louder than 70 dB LAmax. The N70 is useful as it is an arithmetic indicator. All other
things being equal, if the number of aircraft movements over an area doubles, the
44
45
2013 Aviation Policy Framework, Cm 8584, ISBN 9780101858427, Department for Transport,
March 2013.
EU Member States may shorten the evening period by one or two hours and lengthen the day
and/or the night period accordingly, provided that this choice is the same for all the noise
sources in their country.
February 2017
Page 70
CAP 1506
Noise indices
N70 doubles. However, if the extra movements were of a quieter type, not exceeding
70 dB LAmax at the location, then the N70 would remain unchanged. The N70 is also
a useful metric as it permits measured noise levels to be very neatly summarised for
any given period. This type of presentation can be very useful as a supplement to a
LAeq type metric and as a communication tool.
Although it has existed as an indicator to report noise measurements for many
decades, N70 gained prominence as a result of its use in Australia in the late
1990s46, where it supplemented the national indicator (the Australian Noise
Exposure Forecast). In that case, 70 dB LAmax was adopted as, after allowing for 10
dB for outdoor to indoor sound transmission losses, it represented 60dB LAmax,
internally, which is recognised in Australia as a speech interference level. If the same
principles were applied to the UK, where average outdoor to indoor sound
transmission reductions are higher for typical UK housing stock, a higher level than
N70 would be selected.
There is no exact relationship between LAeq,16h and N70, as LAeq,16h takes into
account the amount of sound energy of every event, whether it be above 70dB L Amax
or not, whereas N70 only considers events above the 70dB LAmax threshold.
Figure 11 shows the relationship between N70 and LAeq,16h estimated for the
respondent locations used in the SoNA 2014 survey using the CAA ANCON aircraft
noise model (see Chapter 4 for more details).
46
Southgate, D, “Expanding Ways to Describe and Assess Aircraft Noise”, Department of
Transport and Regional Services, Australia, March 2000, ISBN 0 642 42262 1.
February 2017
Page 71
CAP 1506
Noise indices
Figure 11: Relationship between N70 and LAeq,16h for resident locations surveyed
700
Number of events above 70dB LAmax
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
69
72
LAeq,16h, dBA
It can be seen that N70 varies by approximately a factor of at least 2 for a given
LAeq,16h, or by 3dB for a given N70. This scatter occurs because the N70 indicator
only changes when aircraft maximum noise levels drop below 70dB L Amax, whereas
LAeq,16h indicators respond to any change in individual maximum event level (L Amax) or
change in event duration.
As can also be seen, N70 begins to reach zero at levels below about 55dB LAeq,16h.
Therefore, an additional indicator, N65, the number of noise events above 65dB
LAmax was also examined. Figure 12 shows the relationship between N65 and LAeq,16h
for SoNA 2014 respondent locations.
February 2017
Page 72
CAP 1506
Noise indices
Figure 12: Relationship between N65 and LAeq,16h for resident locations surveyed
700
Number of events about 65dBA Lmax
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
69
72
LAeq,16h, dBA
There is a wider degree of scatter between N65 and LAeq,16h than for N70. This is
because, at higher noise exposure levels, all noise events will eventually exceed 65
dB LAmax and thus N65 will reach a maximum value equal to the total number of
aircraft movements, whereas LAeq,16h will continue to increase. Conversely, N65 only
reaches zero at just over 51 dB LAeq,16h.
February 2017
Page 73
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
Appendix C
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
SECTION A
A1. How long have you lived in this home?

Less than 6 months

6 months - 1 year

1 - 2 years

2 - 5 years

5 - 10 years

10 years or more

Don’t know
{If less than 6 months, ask A1a. Otherwise go to filter before A1b.}
A1a. How many months is that?
[Write in. If less than one month, code as 0.]
{Open text box. Single number allowed, within the range 0-5.}
{If coded less than “10 years or more” at A1, ask A1b.}
A1b. And how long have you lived in this area?
[If asked, “area” can be interpreted as a district, borough or town.]

Less than 6 months

6 months - 1 year

1 - 2 years

2 - 5 years

5 - 10 years

10 years or more

Don’t know
A2. [Code type of dwelling, checking with the respondent as necessary.]

Flat: purpose-built

Flat: conversion

Maisonette (flat on two or more floors): purpose-built

Maisonette (flat on two or more floors): conversion

Bungalow: detached

Bungalow: semi-detached (incl. linked semi-detached) / end terrace

Bungalow: mid-terrace

House with two or more storeys: detached

House with two or more storeys: semi-detached (incl. linked semi-detached) / end terrace

House with two or more storeys: mid-terrace

Cluster home (a home joined to others at the back as well as the sides(s))

Other
{If flat/maisonette, ask A2a, else go to A3.}
A2a. [Code: On which floor of the building is the entrance to this particular flat/maisonette? i.e. not the
entrance to the building as a whole. Enter number of floor. Enter -1 for basement and 0 for ground
floor.]
{Open text box. Single number allowed, within the range -1 to 50.}
A2b [Code: What is immediately above the flat or maisonette?
[If the dwelling is a maisonette, this means above the upper storey of the maisonette.]
 Flat roof
 Loft space (for storage only) and pitched roof
 Pitched roof forming the ceiling of a room in the dwelling
 One or more other flats/maisonettes
A3. Do you have use of an outdoor space such as a garden, terrace or balcony here?
[Includes shared facilities if private.]
February 2017
Page 74
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
 Yes – garden
 Yes – balcony
 Yes – terrace
 No – none§
A3a. On the whole, how much do you like living in this neighbourhood? Please provide your answer
on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 equals definitely like and 7 equals definitely don’t like.
[Showcard A3a]

1
Definitely like

2

3

4

5

6

7
Definitely don't like

Don’t know
A4. Is there anything you particularly like about this neighbourhood?
[Do not read out or show the screen. Try to fit respondent’s reply to precodes as much as possible.]
 Any mention of quietness / peacefulness / freedom from noises or sources of noise
 Any mention of sounds/noises that are liked
 Any positive mention of airport, air travel or aircraft
 Everything
 Any other features that are liked (specify)
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}
 Nothing liked§
 Don't know§
A5. Is there anything you particularly dislike about this neighbourhood?
[Do not read out or show the screen. Try to fit respondent's reply to precodes as much as possible.]
 Any mention of disliking aircraft noise
 Any mention of disliking other noise (e.g. it’s noisy / noise not liked / noise effects / lack of peace &
quiet)
 Any mention of disliking quietness (or disliking absence of noise/sounds)
 Any mention of disliking being close to an airport, without mentioning noise {Go to A5a.}
 Potential source of noise [Specify and code below if a potential source of noise.] {Go to A5b.}
 Any other features that are disliked [Specify and code below if anything else disliked.]
 Nothing disliked§
 Don’t know§
{Ask A5a and/or A5b as routed from A5. Otherwise skip to A6.}
February 2017
Page 75
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
A5a. You mentioned that you dislike being close to the airport. What is it in particular that you dislike?

Dislike is wholly or partly about noise

Dislike is not about noise
A5b. You mentioned that you dislike {{from A5: open text}}
[Read out only the potential source(s) of noise, not anything that is specifically mentioned as a noise,
or anything that clearly has nothing to do with noise.]
What is it in particular that you dislike?

Dislike is wholly or partly about noise

Dislike is not about noise
A6. This card shows a number of different problems that some people may have with their local
environment. Would you please pick up to five that you are personally most affected by?
[Showcard A6]
 Pollution of rivers, lakes, the sea, beaches, etc.
 Air pollution from traffic or local industry/agriculture
 Loss of natural environment – gardens, green spaces or plant/animal life
 Traffic congestion, parking, speed or danger
 Extreme weather (e.g. flooding, drought, high winds, snow and ice)
 Dust and dirt
 Smells
 Litter and/or rubbish
 Pests, including wild/feral animals, birds, insects or fouling by animals other than dogs
 “Light pollution” from streetlights, floodlights, security lights, shops, and other artificial light from
outside the home
 Fouling by dogs
 Noise
 None of these§
In the rest of the questionnaire I’m going to ask you questions about when you are at home. {If A3
answered “garden, balcony or terrace”, say:} By that, I mean inside your home or outdoors at home,
for example {{A3 response}}47 This applies throughout the remainder of the interview.
A7a. Now please think for a moment about all the sounds that come from outside your own home –
whether they are sounds that you like or noises that you dislike. Overall, do these sounds make it
better or worse to be living here for you personally?
[If asked, this includes noise from inside neighbours’ homes.]
[Showcard A7a]

1
Definitely better

2

3

4
Neither better nor worse

5

6

7
Definitely worse

Don’t know
A7b. How sensitive would you say you are to noise?
[Showcard A7b]

1
Not at all sensitive

2

3

4

5

6

7
Very sensitive

Don’t know
A8a. Thinking about the last 12 months or so, when you are here at home, how much does noise from
outside your own home bother, disturb or annoy you?
[If asked, this includes noise from inside neighbours’ homes.]
47
Wherever this text insert appears, CAPI inserts “in your garden, on your balcony, on your
terrace” or whatever part of this is relevant, given the answer to A3.
February 2017
Page 76
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
[Showcard A8a]

Not at all

Slightly

Moderately

Very

Extremely

Don’t know

Don’t hear
{If A8a coded “Not at all” or “Don’t know”, ask A8a(i). Otherwise go to A8b.}
A8a(i). Is that because you never hear any noise from outside your own home?

Never hear noise from outside my home

Hear noise from outside my home, but it does not bother, disturb or annoy me at all

Don’t know
A8b. Next is a 0-to-10 opinion scale for how much noise from outside your own home bothers,
disturbs or annoys you when you are here at home. If you are not at all annoyed choose 0; if you are
extremely annoyed choose 10; if you are somewhere in between, choose a number between 0 and
10.
[If asked, this includes noise from inside neighbours’ homes.]
[If respondent states that they do not hear any noise, then code 98, for don’t know code 99.]
A8b. Thinking about the last 12 months or so, what number from 0 to 10 best shows how much you
are bothered, disturbed or annoyed by noise from outside your own home?
[Showcard A8b]48
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Not at all
Extremely











 Don’t know  Don’t hear
{If A8b coded “Not at all or “Don’t know”, ask A8b(i). Otherwise go to filter after A8b(i).}
48
All columns the same width.
February 2017
Page 77
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
A8b(i). Is that because you never hear any noise from outside your own home?

Never hear noise from outside my home

Hear noise from outside my home, but it does not bother, disturb or annoy me at all

Don’t know
{If “Not at all”, “Don’t hear” or “Don’t know” at A8a and 8-10 at A8b
or
“Very” or “Extremely” at A8a and “Not at all”, “Don’t hear” or “Don’t know” at A8b,
new screen and insert instruction:}
[You have coded conflicting responses at A8a and A8b. Please clarify with respondent and recode
A8a and/or A8b if appropriate. Press next to amend or confirm codes.]
From this point on, I’m going to be asking about sounds and noises only. The next few questions are
about different types of noise. I will show you a few examples of each type of noise that you might
have heard, but by no means do these cover all possibilities, they are examples only.
[Allow the respondent a few seconds to look at the picture, before asking the question.]
A9a. Thinking about the last 12 months or so, when you are here at home, how much does noise from
aircraft, airports or airfields, bother, disturb or annoy you?
[Showcards A9a-A9o ]

Not at all

Slightly

Moderately

Very

Extremely

Don’t know

Don’t hear
{If A9a coded “Not at all” or “Don’t know” ask A10a.}
A10a. Is that because you never hear any noise from aircraft, airports or airfields?

Never hear noise from this source

Hear noise from this source, but it does not bother, disturb or annoy me at all

Don’t know
{Repeat A9b-n and (where appropriate) A10b-n for the following noise categories, replacing “aircraft,
airports or airfields”, in this order and with the relevant show screens.}
A9b.
trains or railway stations [Picture Card A9b]
A9c.
road traffic [Picture Card A9c]
A9d.
sea, river or canal traffic [Picture Card A9d]
A9e.
building, construction, demolition, renovation or roadworks [Picture Card A9e]
A9f.
neighbours (inside their homes) [Picture Card A9f]
A9g.
neighbours (outside their homes) [Picture Card A9g]
A9h.
other people nearby [Picture Card A9h]
A9i.
sports [Picture Card A9i]
A9j.
other entertainment or leisure [Picture Card A9j]
A9k.
industrial sites [Picture Card A9k]
A9l.
other commercial premises [Picture Card A9l]
A9m. forestry, farming or agriculture [Picture Card A9m]
A9n.
community buildings and spaces [Picture Card A9n]
February 2017
Page 78
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
A9o. Thinking about the last 12 months or so, when you are here at home, does noise from any other
source outside your home bother, disturb or annoy you?
 Yes
 No
{If A9o coded “No” skip to A11.}
[If respondent does not mention at least one specific source of noise, prompt for one.
Ensure source is external to the respondent’s home.
If more than one source is mentioned, ask for the one that most bothers, disturbs or annoys the
respondent.
Write in one selected other noise source. Enter source of noise, e.g. "owls", not "noise from owls".]
{Open text box.}
[Fit to a precoded type if possible, by going back to the relevant A9 question, otherwise maintain “Any
other noise” code and tick one box below.]

Military activity (other than vehicles on the road or aircraft/airfields)

Wild birds

Wild animals

Weather (e.g. wind, rain, storms)

Running water (e.g. rivers, waterfalls) or waves

Wind turbines (other than those belonging to a neighbouring home)

Other
A11. I would now like you to think about all these types of noise that I have been asking about. Taking
all these noises together, please look at the statements on this card and tell me which one best
describes the extent to which noise spoils your home life.
[Showcard A11]

Not at all

Not very much

A little

Quite a lot

Totally

Don’t know
{RTN Section asked if road traffic noise bothers, disturbs or annoys at least “Slightly” (codes 2-5 at
A9c).
NN Section asked if noise from neighbours (inside their homes) and/or neighbours (outside their
homes) and/or other people nearby bothers, disturbs or annoys at least “Slightly” (codes 2-5 at 9f-h).
[Read out:]
The following questions ask you to reflect over the last year or so about noises you might have heard
when you have been here at this home.
{If A3 answered “Yes”, say:} Please remember that when we say “at home”, we mean “when you have
been at home, either inside your home or {{A3 response}} at home”.
February 2017
Page 79
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
SECTION RTN – ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE
I would now like to ask you some questions specifically about noise from road traffic.
PICTURECARD RTN1
RTN1. What are the three particular kinds of road traffic noise that most bother, disturb or annoy you?
So, thinking about these sorts of things...
[Unprompted – code specific noise source – please try to use the precoded list.]
{Allow one to three to be coded.}

No particular noise type§49
Noises from types of road
Traffic Noises

Motorways

Vehicles starting / stopping / ticking

Other dual carriageway roads
over (at traffic lights, crossings, etc.)

Single carriageway main roads

Engine revving

Residential/estate roads/country lanes

Air brakes

Car parks

Brake/tyre squeal

Any other kind of road

Vehicles accelerating / going too fast
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long

Car alarms
for the box.}

Vehicle reversing/turning signals

Any other kind of road

Noisy exhausts
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long

Loose/faulty parts rattling, whining, etc.
for the box.}

Police / ambulance / fire engine sirens

Noise from irregularities in the road
surface – drain covers, traffic calming, cobbles,
Vehicles
etc.

Heavy lorries

Vehicles collecting rubbish, recycling or 
Smaller lorries
scrap

Delivery vans

Ice cream van chimes

Buses / coaches

Other music from vehicles

Private cars / taxis

Vehicle horns

Motor bikes / scooters

Road accidents

Refuse collection

Congestion

Electric vehicles

The background “hum” of road traffic

Horse drawn vehicles

Informal / illegal motor sports or racing

Any other kind vehicle

Pedestrian crossing signals
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long

Any other kind of noise from traffic
for the box.}
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long

Any other kind of vehicle
for the box.}
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long

Any other kind of noise from traffic
for the box.}
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long

Any other kind of vehicle
for the box.}
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long

Any other kind of noise from traffic
for the box.}
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long
for the box.}
THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS RTN2 NOR RTN3
49
In effect, this functions as a “Don’t know” code in RTN1, NN1 and OSN1.
February 2017
Page 80
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
RTN4. Does noise from road traffic interfere with any of these aspects of your home life? Please just
read out the letters that apply
[IF YES AT A3 - Showcard RTN4 VERSION 1]
[IF NO AT A3 - Showcard RTN4 VERSION 2]

1
Studying or working at home
Having a conversation (including on the phone or online50)

2
Quiet leisure activities such as reading, writing or resting

3
Listening to TV, radio or music

4
Other leisure activities that involve you making a noise such as gaming or making
5

music
Being able to use every room in the home

6
{If yes at A3:}51 Spending time outdoors at home

7
Having the windows or doors open

8
Sleeping patterns such as the time you go to bed or get up, or being kept awake

9
None of these
Don’t know
{Go to next noise type. If no others filtered in from A9, go to Section CAN.}
50
51
Interviewer briefing/notes to say this includes computer-based calls, audio or audio-visual (e.g.
Skype) here and for analogous questions in other sections.
{Shading of the rows skips to the next row if this row is omitted. CAPI did not select garden,
balcony or terrace according to answer at A3.}
February 2017
Page 81
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
SECTION NN – NEIGHBOUR NOISE
I would now like to ask you some questions specifically about noise from neighbours and other people
when they are nearby.
PICTURECARD NN1
NN1. What are the three particular kinds of noise from neighbours and other people nearby that most
bother, disturb or annoy you?
So, thinking about these sorts of things...
[Unprompted – code specific noise source – please try to use the precoded list.]
{Allow one to three to be coded.}

No particular noise type§
SUB-HEADING: Noise from inside neighbours’ homes

Radio, TV and music (from inside neighbouring homes or outside)

Neighbours’ fireworks

Parties (held inside neighbouring homes or outdoors (without fireworks))

Voices / shouting / arguments (from inside other homes or from outside)

Neighbours doing DIY inside (hammering, drilling, etc.)

Alarms (e.g. burglar, fire or smoke)

Phones/mobiles ringing (from inside or outside)*

Dogs (from inside or outside)*

Other domestic animals / pets (from inside or outside)*

Neighbours’ footsteps, electric sockets / switches, doors banging, or other banging on walls or
floors

Domestic equipment (vacuum cleaners, washing machines, dishwashers, tumble dryers,
boilers, etc.)

Any other noise from neighbours inside their homes
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}
SUB-HEADING: Noise from outside neighbours’ homes

Neighbours’ wind turbine, air conditioning, generator, heat pump, etc.

Noises from people in neighbouring gardens
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}







Cutting/pruning/grinding trees in gardens or in the street or communal areas
Neighbours and other people nearby putting out bins or waste for recycling
Neighbours working outside (DIY, gardening, repairing vehicles, etc.)
Waste collection or wheelie bin cleaning services
Other deliveries or collections (e.g. post, supermarkets, mail/online orders)
Neighbours’ vehicles (e.g. doors slamming, starting up, driving off)
Any other noise from neighbours outside their homes
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}
SUB-HEADING: Other noises from people nearby

Any other noise from people nearby who are not neighbours
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}
February 2017
Page 82
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
{If “Other domestic animals and pets” is one of the chosen options, then clarify by asking NN1a.}
NN1a. What other type of animal or pet is this?
[Write in animal types and code below.]
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}
 Cat
 Cockerel
 Other bird
 Other type

Don’t know
{If any chosen option could emanate from either inside the neighbour’s house, or outside (marked * at
NN1) then clarify by asking NN1b, with as many rows in the response table as are required.}
NN1b. Were you thinking about noise from inside someone’s home or from outside, when you
selected …?
[Read out noise types and code response.]
Inside
Outside
Both
{{Noise type from NN1}}



{{Noise type from NN1}}



NN4. Does noise from neighbours and other people when they are nearby interfere with any of these
aspects of your home life? Please just read out the letters that apply.
[IF YES AT 13 - Showcard NN4 VERSION 1]
[IF NO AT 13 - Showcard NN4 VERSION 2]

1
Studying or working at home
Having a conversation (including on the phone or online52)

2
Quiet leisure activities such as reading, writing or resting

3
Listening to TV, radio or music

4
Other leisure activities that involve you making a noise such as gaming or making
5

music
Being able to use every room in the home

6
53
{If yes at A3:} Spending time outdoors at home

7
Having the windows or doors open

8
Sleeping patterns such as the time you go to bed or get up, or being kept awake

9
None of these

Don’t know

{Go to next noise type. If no others filtered in from A9, go to Section CAN.}
52
53
Interviewer briefing/notes to say this includes computer-based calls, audio or audio-visual (e.g.
Skype) here and for analogous questions in other sections.
{Shading of the rows skips to the next row if this row is omitted. CAPI did not select garden,
balcony or terrace according to answer at A3.}
February 2017
Page 83
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
SECTION CAN – CIVIL AVIATION NOISE54
SCREENER IF RESPONDENT HAS LIVED IN HOME FOR LESS THAN 6 MONTHS – CODE 1 AT
QUESTION A1
S1: Can I just check – have you lived in this home since mid-June 2014?
Yes – CONTINUE WITH QUESTION PREAMBLE AND FROM CAN1
No (if no – only the following questions get asked CAN15a, CAN15b, , CAN21a,(and b/c depending
on ans to 21a), CAN22d, CAN23a/b/c/ CAN 22D, CAN26a, b, CAN 28, CAN29, CAN30, 31)
PLEASE REFER TO TEXT BEFORE CAN 21 FOR THOSE WHO HAVE RESIDED IN HOME AFTER
MID-JUNE 2014 – THEY WON’T GET THE TEXT BELOW – BUT A VARIANT OF IT.
I would now like to ask more about noise specifically from large and small commercial and private
aeroplanes. That means I would like you to ignore any noise you hear from any helicopters or from
military aircraft, for this section of the interview.
These questions are also specifically about your experiences during this summer. By summer I mean
the period roughly from mid-June to mid-September 2014.
{If A3 answered “garden, balcony or terrace”, say:} Also, please remember that when we say “at
home”, we mean when you have been at home, either inside your home or {{A3 response}} at home.
So, to confirm, this is what we are now talking about.
[Showcard CANP]
Response to aircraft noise
CAN1. So, thinking about this summer, when you were here at home, how much did each of these
different types of noise from aeroplanes bother, disturb or annoy you?
[Showcard CAN1]
Not
Don’t
at all Slightly
Moderately Very Extremely
know
Overall noise of all kinds, from
aeroplanes






Noise from aeroplanes on the
ground at an airport (e.g. taxiing
planes, engine testing)






Noise from aeroplanes taking off
and climbing






Noise from aeroplanes
descending and landing






Noise from aeroplanes in flight






Noise from aeroplanes during the
day (7 a.m. - 11 p.m.)






Noise from aeroplanes during the
night (11 p.m. - 7 a.m.)






{If “Not at all” or don’t know to any item at CAN1 ask CAN1a for each item a not at all or dk response
is given before moving on to the next item.}
CAN1a. Is that because you did not hear this kind of noise?

I did not hear this kind of noise

I did hear this kind of noise but it did not bother, disturb or annoy me at all

Don’t know
{If CAN1 (iii) and (iv) given an equal rating other than “Not at all” or “Don’t know”, ask CAN1c before
moving on to the next item.}
CAN1c. You gave “descending and landing” the same rating as “taking off and climbing” – is that
because they affect you equally or because you are not sure whether the aeroplanes were arriving or
departing?

Affected equally
54
This is the policy topic for 2014 and is more detailed but restricted in scope than Section AN.
February 2017
Page 84
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire

Not sure whether the aeroplanes were arriving or departing

Don’t know
{If coded “Not at all”, Don’t know” or “Don’t hear” to all CAN1,ask only CAN 8, CAN15a, CAN15b,
17a/b, can21a-c, 21d and CAN23a, CAN23b, CAN23c, CAN26a, CAN26b, CAN28, CAN29, CAN30,
CAN31 AND CAN34 then go to section HL as per specification
THERE IS NO QUESTION CAN 2
CAN3. Looking at this card, and still thinking about the summer, could you tell me when you were
most bothered, disturbed or annoyed, at home, by noise from aeroplanes? 55
[If asked, tell respondents they should tick the box if any part of the period applies.]
[Showcard CAN356]
6 a.m. –
7 a.m. –
12 noon –
7 p.m. –
11 p.m. –
midnight –
7 a.m.
12 noon
7 p.m.
11 p.m.
midnight
6 a.m.






Mon-Fri
Sat






Sun






Mon-Fri
midnight –
6 a.m.

6 a.m. –
7 a.m.

7 a.m. –
12 noon

12 noon –
7 p.m.

7 p.m. –
11 p.m.

11 p.m. –
midnight

Sat






Sun






{If CAN3 unanswered, ask CAN3a.}
CAN3a. Is there definitely no particular time of day or day of the week?

Yes – no particular time/day

No – there was a particular time/day [Recode CAN3.] {Go back to CAN3.}
CAN4. Looking at this card, and thinking about a typical week during the summer, could you tell me
any times and days when you do not know about the noise because you were usually not at home
then?
{Show only the periods not coded at CAN3.}
[Showcard CAN3 again]57
CAN5. How often, on average, were you bothered, disturbed or annoyed by noise from aeroplanes in
summer? Was it …
[Read out and code first to apply.]

Every day

Most days

A few days a week

At least once a week

At least once a month

Less often

Don’t know
CAN6. And how often, on average, did you hear noise from aeroplanes in summer? Was it …
[Read out and code first to apply.]

Every day

Most days

A few days a week

At least once a week
55
56
The order in which the periods are listed here (and in CAN4) needs to be agreed following the
pilot survey, with these two alternatives each being tested in half the sample.
This showcard will require two versions – one for each version of the question
February 2017
Page 85
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire

At least once a month

Less often

Don’t know
{If response to CAN6 is less often than CAN5, ask CAN6a}
CAN6a. I’ve recorded that you were bothered, disturbed or annoyed {{answer to CAN5}} but that you
only heard the noise from aeroplanes {{answer at CAN6}}. Can I just check if that is correct?

Yes correct {continue}

No not correct {present the following instruction to interviewers.}
[Either recode CAN6 or go back and recode CAN5.]
CAN7. Did noise from aeroplanes interfere with any of these aspects of your home life in the
summer? Please just read out the letters that apply
[Showcard CAN7]
Yes
Studying or working at home

A
58
Having a conversation (including on the phone or online )

B
Quiet leisure activities such as reading, writing, resting

C
Listening to TV, radio or music

D
Other leisure activities that involve you making a noise such as gaming or
E

making music
Being able to use every room in the home

F
{If has garden, balcony or terrace at A3} Spending time outdoors at home

G
Having the windows or doors open

H
Enjoying the local parks and open spaces

I
Having friends or family round

J
Spending time outdoors in the neighbourhood

K
Sleeping patterns such as the time you go to bed or get up, or being kept awake 
L
None of these
{If “Yes” to “Sleeping patterns”, ask CAN7a.}
CAN7a. Over the summer, how often was your sleep affected in some way by noise from aeroplanes?
This could include being kept awake or woken up, or changing the times when you go to bed or get
up.
[Read out and code first to apply.]

Every day

Most days

A few days a week

At least once a week

At least once a month

Less often

Don’t know
58
Interviewer briefing/notes to say this includes computer-based calls, audio or audio-visual (e.g.
Skype) here and for analogous questions in other sections.
February 2017
Page 86
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
CAN7b. Thinking about the summer, when you were here at home, what number from 0 to 10 best
shows the degree to which your sleep was disturbed by noise from aeroplanes?
[Showcard CAN7b]59
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Not at all
Extremely
disturbed
disturbed












Don’t know
CAN8. Did noise from aeroplanes have any of these effects on your household?
[Read out]
Yes No Not applicable


It frightened you
 {Skip next
It frightened your children


item}


It woke your children
It bothered, disturbed or annoyed someone else in
the household


It woke someone else in the household


It upset or woke your pets


 {Skip next
item}
Don’t know







THERE IS NO QUESTION CAN 9
{If code 2-5 at CAN1i, ask CAN10. Otherwise go to CAN11a.}
CAN10. Which one of the following issues, to do with aeroplane noise this summer, concerned you
the most? And the next most ...?
[Showcard CAN10] . Encourage the respondent to avoid tied ranks but allow if necessary.
Flights at night (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Flights during the evening (7 p.m. to 11 p.m.)
Flights during the day (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.)
Flights that don’t seem to be on the expected flight path
The number of flights
The loudness of the aeroplanes
A lack of quiet between individual flights
Not knowing when there will be times during the day without aeroplane noise


59
No (other) issues
Don’t know
All columns the same width.
February 2017
Page 87
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
CAN11a. How much would you say you were bothered, disturbed or annoyed by the noise from
aeroplanes this summer, while it was going on?
[Showcard CAN11a]

Not at all

Slightly

Moderately

Very

Extremely

Don’t know

Don’t hear
CAN11b. And how much, if at all, do you feel that the noise from aeroplanes spoiled your home life
this summer in general, not just when the noise was going on?
[Showcard CAN11b]

Not at all

Slightly

Moderately

Very

Extremely

Don’t know

Don’t hear
THERE IS NO QUESTION CAN 12
THERE IS NO QUESTION CAN 13
CAN13a. Thinking about next summer, do you expect that noise from aeroplanes will be more next
summer or less?
[Showcard CAN13a]

1
Expect it to be less

2

3

4
Expect it to be roughly the same

5

6

7
Expect it to be more

Don’t know
THERE IS NO QUESTION CAN 14
February 2017
Page 88
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
Modification of exposure inside the home – behavioural aspects
~CAN15a. What kind of windows do you have in the room where you sleep?
[Probe and code all that apply.]
SingleSecondary
Don’t know
glazed
glazed/double
glazed or
better’



Openable



Nonopenable
~CAN15b. What kind of windows do you have in the other room where you spend most time at home?
[Probe and code all that apply.]
SingleSecondary
Don’t know
glazed
glazed/double
glazed or
better’



Openable



Non-openable
If not lived here since mid-June 2014 – go to CAN21a
THERE IS NO QUESTION CAN16
CAN17a. Did you ever close the windows, or keep the windows closed, for any of these reasons
during the summer? [If yes, probe to code which reasons.]
[Showcard CAN17a]
 Noise from aeroplanes
 Other noise coming in through the window
 To keep warm or save energy
 Other reasons to do with conditions outdoors (e.g. smoke, odours, wind, rain)
 Security
 Safety (e.g. to prevent children falling out)
 To keep pets in
 To keep animals/insects/pests out
 Habit/preference for no particular reason
 Window not openable
 Other (please specify)
{Single-line open text box – text scrolls along if too long for box.}
 None of these§
CAN17b. Were there times when you wanted to have a window open anywhere in your home for any
of these reasons, but you had it closed to keep out noise from aeroplanes?
[Showcard CAN17b, probe for which reasons apply.]
Would have liked to have the window open …
 To keep cool
 To avoid condensation
 For fresh air / to prevent odour
 To talk to someone or hear what is happening outside
 Out of habit or preference for no particular reason
 Other (please specify)
{Single-line open text box – text scrolls along if too long for box.}
 No, none of these§
CAN18a. When your windows were closed, were you sometimes still able to hear noise from
aeroplanes?

Yes

No

Don’t know
Check on whether summer is the worst time of year
CAN19. Does noise from aeroplanes bother, disturb or annoy you the same amount all year round or
more in certain seasons?
February 2017
Page 89
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
[Probe as necessary for which seasons.]
 Spring
 Summer
 Autumn
 Winter
 All year round – SINGLE CODE ONLY
 No particular season – SINGLE CODE ONLY
 Don’t know§
THERE IS NO QUESTION CAN 20
FOR THOSE NOT RESIDENT SINCE AT LEAST MID-JUNE 2014/THE SUMMER
I would now like to ask you a few questions about noise specifically from large and small commercial
and private aeroplanes. That means I would like you to ignore any noise that you hear from any
helicopters or from military aircraft, for this section of the interview.
So just to confirm, this is what we are now talking about
SHOWCARD CANP
Actions taken
I would now like you to think about anything else you have done or tried to do about noise from
aeroplanes – in general, not just this summer.
This will be modified for those who have not resided in home since mid-June as follows: I would like
you to think about anything you have done or tried to do about noise from aeroplanes in general.
~CAN21a. As far as you know, has any work such as this been done on this home, to try to keep
noise out?
[Showcard CAN21a]
 Changes to the windows
 Changes to the ceiling or roof
 Changes to the walls
 Mechanical ventilation installed
 Any other changes [Write in]
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}
 Don’t know§
{If nothing done, skip to CAN22d.}
February 2017
Page 90
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
CAN21b. Was it done mainly because of noise from aeroplanes, mainly because of some other noise
or mainly for some other reason?

Noise from aeroplanes

Other noise

Other reason [Write in]
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}

Don’t know
~CAN21c. And how was the work paid for?
[Showcard CAN21c]
 Done before you moved in
 Paid for by you or someone else in your household
 Paid for by an airport
 Paid for by central Government or local authority (Council)
 Paid for by someone else [Write in]
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}
 Don’t know§
{If only “Done before you moved in” coded, go to filter before CAN22.}
CAN21d. And when was the work done?
[Showcard CAN21d]
 Since this summer
 During this summer
 Before this summer
 Don’t know§
~CAN22d. Have you or anyone in your household done any of the things on this card about noise
from aeroplanes (remembering that this does not include helicopters or military aircraft), whilst living in
this home, within the last five years?
[Showcard CAN22d]

Yes (Go to CAN23a)

No (Go to CAN26a)

Don’t know (Go to CAN26a)
~CAN23a. And was it about noise in the summer, other times of year, or both?

Summer

Other times of year

Both

Don’t know
February 2017
Page 91
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
~CAN23b. Which of these things on this card have you or anyone else in your household done about
the noise from aeroplanes within the last five years?
[Showcard CAN23b]
 Made our own noise (e.g. playing music) so that we could not hear the noise from elsewhere
 Used earplugs or headphones to avoid hearing the noise
 Started, signed or participated in a campaign, protest or petition
 Took advice, e.g. from Citizens Advice Bureau, another advice or legal organisation
 Went on holiday
 Went to somewhere quiet outdoors in the area (e.g. a park, open space or country area)
 Went to somewhere quiet outdoors away from the area (e.g. a park, open space or country area)
 Went to another town
 Used a different room at home
 Went to someone else’s home
 Went to somewhere else indoors (e.g. a library or place of worship)
Complained/wrote/spoke to:
 an airport, airport owner or airport operator
 one or more airlines
 the Civil Aviation Authority
 a newspaper or TV/radio station
 a resident’s association
 the Environmental Health Department in the Local Authority (Council)
 another Local Authority (Council) Department
 a Government Department
 the Police
 a Councillor
 a Member of Parliament60
 someone else, (please specify)
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}
 Did something else to stop the noise being made or heard (please specify)
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}
 Exactly the same action taken as reported earlier {skip to CAN24}
 Don’t know
~CAN23c. Was the issue resolved to your satisfaction when you {{Action from CAN23b}}, only
partially or not at all?
[If multiple action of the same kind about exactly the same issue, code final outcome.]
 Yes
 Partially
 Not at all
 Don’t know
Confounding factors
~CAN26a. Have you taken any flights from any UK airport, for either work or leisure, in the past five
years?
[If yes, probe for how often.]

Yes, more than once a year

Yes, but only about once a year or less

No, not at all

Don’t remember
{If Yes, ask CAN26b. Otherwise go to CAN28}.
~CAN26b. Have you used [INSERT NAME OF AIRPORT FROM SAMPLE] Airport for either work or
leisure flights in the past five years?
[If yes, and if “more than once a year” at CAN26a, probe for how often.]

Yes, more than once a year

Yes, but only about once a year or less

No, not at all

Don’t remember
60
If respondent asks, this includes UK Parliament, European Parliament and Scottish, Welsh or
Northern Irish devolved government.
February 2017
Page 92
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
CAN28. Are you aware of any of the following?
[Read out]

[INSERT NAME OF AIRPORT FROM SAMPLE] Airport Consultative Committee

[INSERT NAME OF AIRPORT FROM SAMPLE] Airport Noise Action Plan

[INSERT NAME OF AIRPORT FROM SAMPLE] Airport Master Plan

[INSERT NAME OF AIRPORT FROM SAMPLE] Airport website information on noise

Any [INSERT NAME OF AIRPORT FROM SAMPLE] Airport schemes that provide direct
benefits to residents, for example for sound insulation, relocation or noise compensation

None of these§
~CAN29. Are you aware of any attempts by [INSERT NAME OF AIRPORT FROM SAMPLE] Airport
or the airlines to improve control of the noise from aeroplanes?

Yes [Prompt and write in.]
{Open text box. “Return” key can be used within the box.}.

No
~CAN30. Are you aware of anything that [INSERT NAME OF AIRPORT FROM SAMPLE] Airport has
sponsored or supported in the local community?

Yes [Prompt and write in.]
{Open text box. “Return” key can be used within the box.}.

No
February 2017
Page 93
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
~CAN31 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
[Showcard CAN31]
INTERVIEWER NOTE: THESE WILL BE IN A
DIFFERENT ORDER EACH TIME – THE
INTERVIEWER READS OUT THE OPTIONS,
AND THE RESPONDENT WILL ANSWER
FROM STRONGLY AGREE TO STRONGLY
Strongly
DISAGREE
disagree Disagree Not sure
Agree
Strongly
agree
Noise from aeroplanes is bad for the health of
myself or my household





Noise from aeroplanes is bad for children’s
education at the local schools





Aeroplanes cause air pollution around here





Having an airport in the area is good for the local
economy





I worry about plane crashes around here





Noise from aeroplanes makes my home less
valuable





Having an airport in the area makes my home
more valuable





It is convenient to have an airport in the area





Air travel harms the environment





I like flying





I worry about more land being taken over by the
airport





I like watching the aeroplanes





Final ratings
ASK IF LIVED AT HOME SINCE MID-JUNE 2014.
CAN32. Thinking again about just this summer – so from mid-June to mid-September – how much did
noise from aeroplanes bother, disturb or annoy you in each of these locations?
[Showcard CAN32]
Don’t Don’t
Not at all
Slightly
Moderately Very Extremely
know hear
Noise from aeroplanes
while indoors at home







{If “Yes” at A3:} Noise from
aeroplanes while outdoors
at home







Noise from aeroplanes
while outdoors around the
neighbourhood







Overall noise from
aeroplanes at home and
around the neighbourhood.







{If “Not at all” or “Don’t know” to any item at CAN32, ask CAN32a before moving on to the next item.}
February 2017
Page 94
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
CAN32a. Is that because you did not hear this kind of noise?

I did not hear this kind of noise

I did hear this kind of noise but it did not bother, disturb or annoy me at all

Don’t know
To sum up your answers, I would like you to use a 0-to-10 opinion scale for how much noise from
aeroplanes bothered, disturbed or annoyed you when you were here at home this summer. If you
were not at all annoyed, choose 0; if you were extremely annoyed, choose 10; if you were somewhere
in between, choose a number between 0 and 10.
[If respondent states that they do not hear any noise, then code 98, for don’t know code 99.]
THERE IS NO QUESTION CAN 33
CAN34. Thinking about this summer, what number from 0 to 10 best shows how much you were
bothered, disturbed or annoyed by noise from aeroplanes?
[Showcard CAN34]61
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Not at all










10
Extremely

 Don’t know  Don’t hear
SECTION HL – INDIVIDUAL HEALTH
I would now like to ask you a few questions about your health today.
HL1. In general, would you say your health is:
[Showcard HL1]

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Don’t know
HL2. Do you often feel tired and not rested in the morning?

Yes

No
HL3. During the past month, how often have you taken medicine (prescribed or “over the counter”) to
help you sleep because of noise?
[Showcard HL3]
 Not during the past month
 Less than once a week
 Once or twice a week
 Three or more times a week
 Would rather not say
61
All columns the same width.
February 2017
Page 95
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
HL4. I’m going to read out some statements about feelings and thoughts. For each one, please tell
me how often, if at all, you have felt this way over the last two weeks. Please read out the letter that
applies?
[Showcard HL4]
C)
F) Don’t
Some
E)
know/
[Show on screen in random order.]
A) All of B)
of the
D)
None of refused
the time Often
time
Rarely
the time
I’ve been feeling optimistic about the
future






I’ve been feeling useful






I’ve been feeling relaxed






I’ve been dealing with problems well






I’ve been thinking clearly






I’ve been feeling close to other people






I’ve been able to make up my own
mind about things






Source: Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS)
© NHS Health Scotland, University of Warwick and University of Edinburgh, 2006, all rights reserved.
SECTION H – HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION
I would like to finish by asking you a few questions about this home and your household.
SoNA2013 items
H2. In what year was your home originally built?
[Prompt if necessary.]

Before 1919

1919 – 1940

1941 – 1960

1961 – 1990

1991 – 2000

2001 – 2010

2011 – 2014

Don’t know
H3. Which of these applies to your home?
[Showcard H3]

Being bought on a mortgage

Owned outright by household

Rented from local authority

Rented from housing association

Rented from private landlord

Shared ownership

Tied to employment

Other

Refused
February 2017
Page 96
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
H4a. How did you come to be living here?
[Showcard H4a]

My choice

Choice made with someone else in the household

Choice made by someone else in the household

Choice made by landlord (e.g. Local Authority, housing association)

Choice made by someone else outside the household, e.g. employer

Other (please specify)
{Open text box. “Return” key can be used within the box.}
Refused§
H4a(ii). Prior to moving here, were you aware of a possibility of hearing noise from the airport?
[Showcard H4a(ii)]

I have always lived here

No

Yes, but the noise was more than I expected

Yes, and the noise was roughly what I expected

Yes, but the noise was less than I expected

Yes, but the noise has got worse since I moved here
Don’t know
Refused
H4b. Which (if any) of these things do you not like about living in this home?
[Showcard H4b]
 Not knowing the neighbourhood
 Being far from family/friends
 Being far from work
 Being far from your own community
 The neighbours
 Crime/violence/gangs/youths/drug dealers
 The local schools
 The transport links
 Lack of parks, lakes, countryside or other open spaces
 The shops
 Not enough parking
 Other local facilities
 Dog fouling
 Traffic/roads/close to roads
 Litter
 Generally dislike the neighbourhood
 None of these§
H4c. And which (if any) of these things do you see as good things about living in this home?
[Showcard H4c]
 Born in this neighbourhood
 Being near family/friends
 Being near work
 Being near your own community
 Friendly area/good neighbours/community spirit
 Safety/low crime
 The local schools
 The transport links
 Parks, lakes, countryside or other open spaces
 The shops
 Other local facilities
 Generally clean and tidy
 Generally like the neighbourhood
 None of these§
H5. Which of these age groups are you in?
[Showcard H5]

18 – 19 years

20 – 24 years

25 – 34 years
February 2017
Page 97
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire

35 – 44 years

45 – 54 years

55 – 64 years

65 – 74 years

75 years or older

Refused
H6. [Code respondent gender.]

Male

Female
H7a. Please tell me if you have other household members in the following age categories?
[Showcard H7a]
 Under 1
 1-4 years
 5-10 years
 11-15 years
 16-17 years
 18-19 years
 20-24 years
 25-34 years
 35-44 years
 45-54 years
 55-64 years
 65-74 years
 75 years or older
 None§
 Refused§
{If any coded at H7a, ask H7b.}
H7b. How many people in each age group, other than yourself, live in this household?
[Probe for each displayed age group.]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8







{{Age group}} 
9

 Refused§
H8. Which of these best describes your current situation?
[Showcard H8]

Working full time (30 hours a week or more)

Working part time

Unemployed and looking for work

Retired from paid work altogether

In full-time education

Looking after the home or family

Something else

Refused
{If working full or part time, ask H9a. Otherwise go to filter before H10a.}
H9a. Do you ever work from home?

Yes

No
{If “Yes” at H9a, ask H9b. Otherwise go to H9c.}
H9b. How many days in a typical week do you work from home?

Less than 3

3 to 4

5 to 7

Varies

Don’t know
H9c. Which of the following times of day do you normally work?
[Showcard H9c]

Mostly during the day

Mostly in the evenings
February 2017
Page 98
10+

CAP 1506



SoNA 2014 questionnaire
Mostly at night
Varying shift patterns
Don’t know
Airport-related employment
{If working, ask H10a.}
H10a. Does your work include any of these kinds of employment?
[Showcard H10a]
 Working for an airport
 Working for an airline
 Working for another company that does business at an airport
 Work that is not at an airport but gets some benefit from the airport being there
 Other work related to the aircraft or air travel industry.
 None of these§
{If retired, ask H10b.}
H10b Did your work, before you retired, include any of these kinds of employment?
[Showcard H10b]
 Working for an airport
 Working for an airline
 Working for another company that does business at an airport
 Work that is not at an airport but gets some benefit from the airport being there
 Other work related to the aircraft or air travel industry.
 None of these§
{If anyone else aged 16+ in the household at H7a, ask H10c.}
H10c Does anyone else in the household have work that includes any of these kinds of employment?
[Showcard H10c]
 Working for an airport
 Working for an airline
 Working for another company that does business at an airport
 Work that is not at an airport but gets some benefit from the airport being there
 Other work related to the aircraft or air travel industry.
 None of these§
SoNA2013 items
ASK ALL
ALL QUESTIONS BELOW BASED ON CIE, WHETHER RESPONDENT OR ANOTHER MEMBER
OF HOUSEHOLD.
IF THE CIE IS RETIRED AND RECEIVES A PENSION FROM THEIR LAST COMPANY,
QUESTIONS SHOULD BE BASED ON THEIR POSITION WHILST WORKING AT THE COMPANY
IF THE CIE IS A WIDOW/WIDOWER AND THEIR LARGEST SOURCE OF INCOME IS A PENSION
FROM THEIR PARTNERS LAST COMPANY, QUESTIONS SHOULD BE BASED ON THEIR
PARTNERS POSITION WHILST WORKING AT THE COMPANY
NOW COLLECT DETAILS OF RESPONDENT'S JOB .
THE CHIEF INCOME EARNER IS :
THERE IS NO QUESTION H11
H12a. What type of firm do you work for?
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}

Refused
H12b. What do you do? What does the work involve?
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}

Refused
H12c. Is the work manual/non manual?

Manual

Non manual

Refused
February 2017
Page 99
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
H12d. Are you an employee or self employed?

Employed

Self employed

Refused
H12e. Do you have any position/rank/grade in the organisation? (PROMPT: Foreman, Sergeant,
Manager, Chief Executive etc.)
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}

Refused
H12f. How many people work at the same place?
{Allow numerals only}

Refused
H12g. How many people are you responsible for?
{Allow numerals only}

Refused
H12h. [Type in any other relevant information regarding people they are responsible for.]
(E.G. OTHER SALESMEN, MANAGERS, CLERICAL OR MANUAL WORKERS)
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}

Refused
H12i. What is the job title of the person you report to?
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}

{Allow numerals only}
Refused
February 2017
Page 100
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
H12i. What qualifications do you have that are relevant to your job?
[COLLECT ALL AND PROBE FOR LEVEL E.G. BELOW, AT, ABOVE DEGREE LEVEL]1
{Open text box, text scrolls along if too long for the box.}
{Allow numerals only}

Refused
H13. Occupation of Chief Income Earner
{SUMMARISE RESPONSES TO H12 IN BOX BELOW}
Type of firm:
Job:
Employment status:
No. of people at place of work:
No. of people responsible for:
Qualifications:
Position/rank/grade:
Report to:
[CIE/Respondent is in group ...]62

A

B

C1

C2

D

E
H14a. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Department for
Transport (DfT) would like to combine the answers you have given with other information on local
noise and noise sources. To do this they would need to know your full address, and I need to ask your
permission for us to include your address with the survey data.
I can guarantee that your address will only be used by Defra and DfT and people working on behalf of
Defra and DfT, and will only be used to combine your answers with information about noise. Is it OK
to include your address with the survey data or would you prefer not?

Yes – can include address

No – would prefer not
H14b. There are no plans at present for any follow-up interview to this survey, but if there were in
future would you be prepared to take part in further research on similar topics for Defra or DfT?
Your address details may be passed on to Defra and/ or DfT to be used by either themselves or
another research organisation – they will only be used for research purposes

Yes – prepared to take part

No – would prefer not
H15a. [Record: Is the respondent address exactly as given in the Contact Sheet?]

Yes {Ask H15b.}
 No {Skip to H15c.}
62
Standard social group classification.
February 2017
Page 101
CAP 1506
SoNA 2014 questionnaire
H15b. [Enter name, address and telephone details, explain to respondent that we ask for phone
number so that a certain percentage of interviews can be checked – explain that if they do not want to
be called for further research by {{fieldwork contractor}} this number will not be passed on to other
{{fieldwork contractor}} researchers. Ensure you write in the full address and postcode (this is on your
sample list).]
Title:
{Drop-down: Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms}
{Open text box}
Name:
{0nnnn nnnnnn required} [Enter 01, 02 or 03 for a landline, 07 for a
Phone number:
mobile then 3 further digits, a space and the rest of the phone
number, e.g. 02072 890901.]
{Drop-down: Home / Mobile / Ex-directory / Refused}
Phone type:
{Go to H16.}
H15c. [Enter name and telephone details, explain to respondent that we ask for phone number so that
a certain percentage of interviews can be checked – explain that if they do not want to be called for
further research by {{fieldwork contractor}} this number will not be passed on to other {{fieldwork
contractor}} researchers.]
Title:
{Drop-down: Mr / Mrs / Miss / Ms}
{Open text box}
Name:
{0nnnn nnnnnn required} [Enter 01, 02 or 03 for a landline, 07 for a mobile then
Phone number:
3 further digits, a space and the rest of the phone number, e.g. 02072 890901.]
{Drop-down: Home / Mobile / Ex-directory / Refused}
Phone type:
H16. If we needed to check anything about any of your answers would it be all right if we contacted
you again?

Yes

No
February 2017
Page 102
CAP 1506
2014 noise exposure contours for study airports
Appendix D
2014 noise exposure contours for study airports
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
February 2017
Page 103
CAP 1506
2014 noise exposure contours for study airports
Figure 1: Birmingham
February 2017
Page 104
CAP 1506
2014 noise exposure contours for study airports
Figure 2: East Midlands
February 2017
Page 105
CAP 1506
2014 noise exposure contours for study airports
Figure 3: Gatwick
February 2017
Page 106
CAP 1506
2014 noise exposure contours for study airports
Figure 4: Heathrow
February 2017
Page 107
CAP 1506
2014 noise exposure contours for study airports
Figure 5: London City
February 2017
Page 108
CAP 1506
2014 noise exposure contours for study airports
Figure 6: Luton
February 2017
Page 109
CAP 1506
2014 noise exposure contours for study airports
Figure 7: Manchester
February 2017
Page 110
CAP 1506
2014 noise exposure contours for study airports
Figure 8: Newcastle
February 2017
Page 111
CAP 1506
2014 noise exposure contours for study airports
Figure 9: Stansted
February 2017
Page 112
CAP 1506
Airport developments, consultations and trials during 2014
Appendix E
Airport developments, consultations and trials
during 2014
During 2014, several of the airports surveyed announced developments, undertook
consultations and or operated airspace trials that altered either the actual and/or
potentially the perceived noise exposure in their vicinity, leading to both increases
and decreases in noise exposure. Any of these factors may have had an impact on
the responses given in survey interviews, as might a respondents expectation of
what might follow as a result of the development, consultation and/or trial. Details of
relevant developments, consultations and trials are summarised below.
Birmingham Airport
In July 2014, the new extended runway at Birmingham airport was opened. The
longer runway can cater for larger aircraft and allows for more flights to long haul
destinations. A trial of revised PBN departure routes to the south of the airport
commenced on 1 May 2014 and ended on 13 February 2015.
Gatwick
In August 2013, Gatwick airport gained approval for nine PBN departure routes,
replicating previously flown departure routes flown using conventional navigation.
The transition to PBN enabled more precise navigation concentrating aircraft
departure tracks. Initially, use was voluntary, but by 1 May 2014, all operators
capable of flying the PBN departure routes were required to do so.
Gatwick airport carried out a six month trial of a potential new departure route,
known as ADNID. This commenced on the 10 February 2014 and ended on 8
August 2014. The trial was on westerly departures. This was to test for PBN which
allowed aircraft to fly more precise routes. In addition, a 12 week consultation which
also ended on 8 August 2014 took place and asked for views on three departure
routes, including the ADNID route and respite on arrival routes.
February 2017
Page 113
CAP 1506
Airport developments, consultations and trials during 2014
Heathrow
Heathrow undertook a series of departure trials using both conventional and
Performance Based Navigation (PBN) during 2014. The trials allowed aircraft
departure routes to be followed more precisely and also included the trialling of new
departure routes to provide resilience and/or alternating flight paths. From 16
December 2013 to 15 June 2014, trials took place on one easterly and one westerly
departure route. From 28 July 2014 to 12 November 2014 trials took place which
affected 2 easterly departure routes to the south. The remaining 4 easterly departure
routes were not affected. From 25 August 2014 to 12 November 2014, Heathrow
undertook a series of westerly departure trials. These affected three of the six routes.
London City
From 4 September to the 27 November 2014, London City airport consulted on
proposals to modernise its flight paths by introducing PBN departure routes that
replicated its existing conventional navigation departure routes that are reliant on
ground based navigational aids and allows aircraft to follow more precise routes.
Luton airport
On 30 April 2014, the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and
Local Government announced that he did not wish to call in Luton airport’s planning
application for proposed alterations to access roads to the airport, alterations to the
terminal, new car parks, next taxiways and extension to existing taxiways. The
planning application will enable the airport to increase the number of flights and
accommodate up to 18 million passengers per year in 2030.
Newcastle airport
During 2014 Newcastle International Airport Limited carried out a public consultation
on a series of Standard Instrument Departure (SID) routes, which replicated the
established departure routes. Approval of the SIDs was granted in 2015.
Stansted
Throughout 2014 Stansted airport continued a limited PBN trial on two departure
routes to the east of the airport. The trial initially commenced with easyJet but was
February 2017
Page 114
CAP 1506
Airport developments, consultations and trials during 2014
extended to other operators who had Required Navigation Performance63 (RNP)1
approval.
NATS carried out a 12 week consultation on a proposed airspace change which
ended on 8 June 2014. This proposal sought to place most of the departure flights to
the south onto the existing eastbound departure routes (using the existing
conventional SID). This did not involve any new flight paths. The aim was to avoid
congestion, reduce delays, fuel consumption and the amount of carbon dioxide
emitted. The proposal was approved in October 2015.
The airport also consulted on its draft sustainable development plan during 2014.
This consultation focused on growing and developing the airport and making best
use of a single runway operation.
Other developments
During the SoNA 2014 interview period, work was continuing by the Airport
Commission in preparation for its final report into airport capacity in the South East.
The Commission consulted on its detailed assessments of the three shortlisted
options. This consultation ran for three months from November 2014 to February
2015. In December 2014 as part of the consultation on the three shortlisted options
the Commission held two public consultation discussion sessions, one at Heathrow
and the other at Gatwick. Speakers at these events included MPs, councillors,
campaign groups and representatives of local and regional businesses as well as the
promoters of the three shortlisted schemes.
63
A form of Performance-Based Navigation.
February 2017
Page 115